Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

ANSWER TO ADDRESS

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Mediterranean Fleet (H.M.N.Z.S. "Royalist")

Mr. Wigg: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the date on which the cruiser H.M.N.Z.S. "Royalist" joined the Mediterranean Fleet; and the date on which the New Zealand Government required that H.M.N.Z.S. "Royalist" should not be operationally committed in the Eastern Mediterranean.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. George Ward): H.M.N.Z.S. "Royalist" joined the Mediterranean Fleet on 9th July for her work up and sailed from Malta for New Zealand on 7th November when this had been completed. The second part of the Question does not arise since it was mutually agreed between the New Zealand Government and Her Majesty's Government that "Royalist" should not be operationally committed.

Seaman (Death)

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will make a statement regarding the

circumstances of the death of Brian Hodgkinson, a 16-year-old seaman, following his collapse on H.M.S. "Maidstone" at Weymouth on 15th October, 1956.

Mr. Ward: I have sent a full report on this case to the hon. Member.

Mr. Brockway: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that report, may I ask whether he is aware that this boy had vomiting attacks at sea since last April, which were proved by the postmortem to be not normal sea sickness but due to intestinal obstruction, that the boy went on leave because of dread of these vomiting attacks and that he was placed in punishment cells and died three days later? In view of the circumstances, will the hon. Gentleman look into this case, seek to remedy any medical defects of administration and please give an ex gratia payment to the mother of the boy?

Mr. Ward: I cannot deal with all the points now, but I have dealt with them faithfully in my letter to the hon. Member. I would, however, say that the boy had constant medical attention, not only from Service doctors but from civilian doctors also, and none of them immediately diagnosed the cause of his death.

Mr. Brockway: In view of that unsatisfactory reply, I ask leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Stores, Suez Canal Base

Mr. Benn: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the estimated value of the naval stores held at the Suez Canal base at the latest convenient date; whether he has any information about the situation that has developed since then at that base; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ward: The estimated value of naval stores held at the Suez Canal base on 31st October last was £13,000; in addition 23,500 tons of oil fuel valued at £164,500 was held at Port Said. The naval stores were held at Tel-el-Kebir, which is outside the area occupied by the Anglo-French forces. I have no further information about the situation which has developed there.
Details of the Admiralty oil fuel depot are not yet available but no report of extensive damage to our fuel installations at Port Said has been received.

Mr. Benn: Has the Minister consulted the legal experts in his Department to ascertain whether, when armed conflict breaks out between two countries, the property of the armed forces of one of those countries located in the other country is able lawfully to be seized? Will he please make a statement to the House?

Mr. Ward: I will certainly look into that question.

Mr. Callaghan: Quite apart from a question of stores, were any British personnel associated with the safeguarding of these stores? If so, has the hon. Gentleman any news about them?

Mr. Ward: There were no naval staff there. There were civilian contractors under War Office arrangements.

Mr. Callaghan: Can the hon. Gentleman say what has happened to them?

Mr. Ward: No, I cannot. Perhaps the hon. Member would address that question to the Secretary of State for War.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Telegraph Service

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the disorganised conditions which prevail in some of the larger telegraph centres as a result of the closing down of certain night appointed offices and the increased work arising from the Suez crisis; and what steps he proposes to take to correct the situation.

The Postmaster-General (Dr. Charles Hill): I assume that the hon. Member has particularly in mind the pressure of work which occurred at Bristol after the closing of the night appointed offices at Plymouth, Exeter and Bournemouth. My inquiries are not yet completed and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as I can.

Mr. Williams: In thanking the Postmaster-General for that information, which is not as full as the information which has been given to me from other quarters, may I ask two questions? First,

is he aware of the serious concern and interest which is felt in many quarters, especially among the staff in the telegraph service, about the very bleak future of the service? Secondly, will he examine every possible means, including, if necessary, a reduction in telegraph charges, with a view to bringing some stability into this vital telecommunications link which is so essential to the safety of the nation and its commercial and social life?

Dr. Hill: I am aware of the concern to which the hon. Member refers. I agree that a good deal has yet to be done to achieve stability. I have secured a market research report on the public needs through the Central Office of Information. I have just had a preliminary report. I am studying it, and I hope as a result of that examination to make some progress towards the stability to which the hon. Member referred.

Sir W. Wakefield: In view of the large number of telegrams which the Government have received in support of their policy, will my right hon. Friend consider reducing the price of telegrams for the rest of the season?

Hungarian Relief Parcels (Postal Charges)

Mr. du Cann: asked the Postmaster-General whether parcels addressed to approved organisations for Hungarian relief in the United Kingdom or abroad will be accepted henceforward at post offices in the United Kingdom free of postal charges.

Dr. Hill: I told the organisations concerned with Hungarian relief in this country that I should be willing that relief parcels should be delivered free of postal charges. They replied that so much generosity is being shown by the British people that they do not consider it necessary at this juncture to ask for free postage.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Batmen, White Waltham

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many airmen at White Waltham, Berkshire, are employed as batmen; and their duties.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Nigel Birch): Fourteen. They are employed on various duties in the mess, and in carrying out prescribed duties in officers' single and married quarters.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these duties include babysitting? Does he not think that it is a bit silly to call up able-bodied young men, some of them from very important civilian occupations, to carry out baby-sitting operations?

Mr. Birch: The prescribed duties do not include baby-sitting operations.

Science and Engineering Graduates

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will take steps to identify the science or engineering graduates, or holders of equivalent qualifications, who are enrolled in the Royal Air Force and are serving as fitters or in other capacities in which their specialised knowledge is not used; and whether he will either transfer them to duties which require the use of their specialised knowledge or else release them.

Mr. Birch: The qualifications of all men entering the Royal Air Force are taken fully into account when allocating them to trades and are permanently recorded on their documents. We do all we can to make the best use of these qualifications.

Mr. Mikardo: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have already been informed in a Parliamentary Answer that his Department does not even know what officers and how many officers there are with these qualifications engaged in occupations which do not use the qualifications? How can he reconcile that with what he has just told me? Further, is he aware that I have been told that there are 300 airmen of engineering and science degree standard who are not being used in accordance with their qualifications? Does he not think that that is silly when industry, universities and the schools are all short of people with those qualifications?

Mr. Birch: On the first point, of course when a man enters the Service all his qualifications are most carefully noted and recorded. On the second point, 50 of the 300 airmen to whom the hon. Member has referred have instructing duties and

most of the rest are acting as fitters. The majority of these men are men who have failed to get a commission, and we are making the best use of them that we can.

Mr. Mikardo: Does the right hon. Gentleman really say that it is making the best use of a man with a degree in engineering or science or the equivalent to use him as a fitter? Is that the best he can do for the nation?

Mr. Birch: As the hon. Gentleman knows, National Service is universal, and not everybody can be employed exactly where he would wish when in the Service. We are using these men in the best way we can.

Mr. Wigg: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that National Service is not universal? Miners, agricultural workers and Merchant Navy men are exempt.

Mr. Birch: I am, of course, aware of that.

Aircraft Accident, London Airport

Mr. Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) whether he will make public the report of the inquiry into the Vulcan bomber accident at London Airport;
(2) whether he will make a statement on the Vulcan bomber accident at London Airport.

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will now make a statement on the Vulcan bomber accident at London Airport.

Mr. Birch: Inquiries into this accident are still going on. I shall make a full statement as soon as I can.
Publication of the proceedings and findings of a court of inquiry would be contrary to long-standing custom, and would not be in the public interest.

Mr. Hunter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great concern about this unfortunate accident is felt by the large residential population around London Airport? Although it may be contrary to previous decisions, I hope that he will publish the report of the inquiry to assure people that steps were taken to see that an accident like this will not occur again.

Mr. Birch: No one is more anxious that I should make a statement as soon as I can than I am, and I can promise the House that I shall make a statement as soon as I possibly can.

Mr. Skeffington: As well as the large local population to which my hon. Friend has referred, local authorities surrounding the airport are very alarmed about this accident and the possibilities which might have arisen if the crash had occurred outside the boundaries of the airfield. Those are very serious circumstances for those local authorities, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have that in mind in preparing a statement and presenting it as soon as possible.

Mr. Birch: Yes, Sir.

Mr. de Freitas: In view of the very long delay, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is considerable ground for public anxiety about the efficiency of the present method of inquiry into these crashes?

Mr. Birch: No, I do not think so at all. In this case the Royal Air Force court of inquiry was convened on the day of the accident, and it reported three week after, which is far quicker than would have been the case with any civil inquiry. There are certain points about which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport wishes to inquire further before I make a statement.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that here was a case of a military aircraft landing at a civil airport and that that is where the public interest arises? In view of the number of foreign airlines operating from London Airport, there is wide interest in this matter. Will my right hon. Friend therefore make an exception and satisfy the people who are really concerned about it?

Mr. Birch: I hope that when I make my statement my hon. and gallant Friend will consider it satisfactory.

Airfields, Cyprus and Malta (United Nations Force)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air which Royal Air Force airfields in Cyprus and Malta will be made available to the United Nations Police Force.

Mr. Birch: We will do all we can to meet any request for assistance which the United Nations may make to us, but so far we have not received any such request.

Station, Wahn (Aircraft Movements)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what has been the number of air movements by military and civil aircraft, respectively, during the last two months at the Royal Air Force Station, Wahn.

Mr. Birch: In September and October there were 5,665 movements of military aircraft and 830 movements of civil aircraft.

Mr. de Freitas: Will the Secretary of State resist the West German Government's attempt to take over this N.A.T.O. airfield and use it as a civil airfield, especially since they have contributed very little in money and materials to Western defence? The very least they can do is to build a civil airport.

Mr. Birch: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that this is a military airfield, or rather a N.A.T.O. airfield, with Belgian as well as British units on it. The matter has been referred to N.A.T.O.

Raincoats

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider the free issue of raincoats to all ranks of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Birch: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 18th July.

Mr. Rankin: I hope that the Secretary of State has progressed since then. Does he regard it as just to compel young men into the Armed Forces and then to refuse them raincoats unless they pay £5 for them?

Mr. Birch: There is no question of compulsion about the purchasing of a raincoat. The men are issued with greatcoats and also with groundsheets, as has always been done. However, it was thought that they might like to have raincoats, but it is optional and they can buy them if they want. Most people have not bought them.

Operational Requirements (System)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in order that the process of supplying aircraft may be speeded up, he will review his organisation for aircraft procurement especially in the stating of operational requirements.

Mr. Birch: On taking office I carried out a review of the system for stating operational requirements. In general I consider that the present organisation is sound, but the establishment of joint Air Ministry-Ministry of Supply project teams, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and I have set up, should strengthen the machinery for coordinating the development of complete weapons systems.

Mr. de Freitas: Will it go any way towards meeting the almost unanimous protests of the Service, the designers and manufacturers, and the aeronautical journalists that the present system of procurement is very slow indeed and results in great loss to the public?

Mr. Birch: The hon. Gentleman's Question related to the stating of operational requirements by the Air Ministry. I have looked very carefully into that, and I think that on the whole we have been pretty good.

Mr. Stokes: To what extent are the requirements of the Air Ministry being co-ordinated by the Minister of Defence with the procurements required by the other Service Departments?

Mr. Birch: The system is that all the detailed work, once the operational requirement has been stated, is done by the Ministry of Supply. The general policy is decided by the Minister of Defence. The general policy about the sort of proportion of fighters and bombers, etc., that there ought to be is his.

Stores, Suez Canal Base

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for Air the estimated value of the Royal Air Force stores held at the Suez Canal base at the latest convenient date; whether he has any information about the situation that has developed since then at that base; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Birch: Apart from a small amount of equipment and spares for aircraft

staging at Abu Sueir and Fanara, the only Royal Air Force stores held in the Canal Zone were stocks of aviation fuel. At mid-September it is estimated that these stocks were worth £210,000. I have no definite information as to what has happened to the stores within the past fortnight.

Mr. Benn: Since one of the first reasons given by the Prime Minister for going into the Canal Zone was the value of British property there, is it not curious that the right hon. Gentleman has not been able to give us any information about those stores during the last two weeks?

Mr. Birch: I have given the information that I can give, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are not physically in possession of the area where these things are.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Railway Electrification (Southend Lines)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what progress has been made with the electrification of the railways to Southend.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The British Transport Commission tells me that the electrification of the railway from Shenfield to Southend is now nearly complete and it is expected that through electric trains between Liverpool Street and Southend will start running on 31st December.
As regards electrification of the line from Fenchurch Street to Tilbury and Southend, which is included in the Railway Modernisation Plan, detailed planning is proceeding. Contracts have been let for certain preliminary engineering works and work has started at several sites.

Oil Supplies

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what quantity of oil was imported into Great Britain in 1955 in ships flying flags of convenience such as those of Panama, Liberia and Costa Rica.

Mr. Watkinson: It is estimated that the quantity of petroleum oils imported


into Great Britain in 1955 in ships flying the flags of Panama, Liberia, Costa Rica and Honduras was about 7 million tons.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that by giving work of this character to people who fly flags of convenience we are encouraging them to avoid their obligations under the Charter of I.L.O.? Will he take steps to see either that these people carry out their obligations or that the work is done by those who do carry out their obligations?

Mr. Watkinson: There are two considerations. One is that this tonnage is quite a small proportion of the total imports. The second and more important, with which, I think, the hon. Gentleman will agree, is that it is not in our widest commercial interest, as a large shipowning country, to interfere with the rights of shipowners to charter where they like.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would be to the greatest interest of this country to make use of every possible tanker at the present time?

Mr. C. Howell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what consultations have taken place with the British Transport Commission in connection with the necessity to conserve oil and petrol; and the result of such consultations.

Mr. Watkinson: I am in close touch with the Commission, which has taken steps to reduce consumption both by its road haulage companies and, so far as possible, by the London Transport Executive and its provincial and Scottish bus undertakings.

Mr. Howell: The Minister said he has been in "close touch". Will he inform the House whether he has had any recommendations from the British Transport Commission?

Mr. Watkinson: I have had something rather better than that. The Commission has shown concrete progress by taking 1,500 lorries off the roads.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Will there be any parallel reduction in the number of vehicles under the control of private carriers? If not, what is obviously likely to happen is that some of the loads,

instead of being carried by British Road Services, will go to the private hauliers, so that there will be no reduction in the amount of petrol consumed.

Mr. Watkinson: This action by British Road Services is action taken on its own commercial judgment. I have been informed by all road interests that they will loyally try to carry out the request made to them, and I have no reason to doubt that they will.

Mr. Strauss: Could not the Minister go further than that? If, as he says, there is to be a 10 per cent. reduction on the part of British Road Services, surely he ought to make an appeal or, if necessary, an order—at any rate, take some steps to ensure—that private road hauliers make a similar reduction? Surely that is in the national interest and is only fair?

Mr. Watkinson: I have told the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. C. Howell) and the right hon. Gentleman that I have been in touch with all the road interests concerned and that they have all informed me that they intend to carry out and implement to the full this 10 per cent. cut. How they do it is a matter for their commercial judgment, and not mine.

Mr. McLeavy: In addition to consulting both the British Transport Commission and the private sector of the industry, will the Minister ensure the closest possible consultation with the trade unions concerned, in order to ensure that the interests of the men affected will at least be reasonably protected?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I quite agree; and it is certainly my wish that that, so far as I can control it, should be done.

Road and Rail Haulage

Mr. C. Howell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what joint consultations he has initiated between private road haulage contractors and the British Transport Commission with a view to diverting traffic from the roads to the railways during the present oil shortage; and what was the result.

Mr. Watkinson: The reply which I gave on Monday to a Question by the hon. Member about traffic to and from the nationalised industries applies equally to all traffic.

Mr. Howell: As the Minister has had two or three days in which to confer since the last occasion on which he answered a Question on the matter in the House, may I ask him with what speed he is initiating the getting of something done? Or are we still to rely on the good will of other people?

Mr. Watkinson: I do not think that the hon. Member can have heard the answer which I have just given to the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss), in which I said that since he asked his Question the other day, I have had replies from all the interests concerned saying that they would implement the request made to them.

Mr. Ernest Davies: As it is the intention to divert traffic as far as possible from the roads to the railways, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the railways will not have their oil supplies cut, for if they do their services will necessarily deteriorate, particularly those of the diesel shunting engines, so that the railways will be prevented from doing the extra work?

Mr. Watkinson: That is a very good point. I have it in mind, and I am taking it up with the Minister of Fuel and Power.

Mrs. Braddock: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any word about the position in Liverpool? Will he look at the position there again with reference to the Liverpool Overhead Railway, which is closing down at the end of December. In those circumstances many more buses will have to be put on the road and will therefore be using more oil and petrol when it is necessary to save.

Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly look at that point.

Motor Cyclists (Crash Helmets)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will introduce legislation to make the use of crash helmets compulsory on all motor cyclists.

Mr. Watkinson: No, Sir. This matter was considered during the passage of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, and the eventual decision was against compulsion. But the Act gives me power to prescribe the types of helmet considered satisfactory and makes it an offence to sell or offer for sale

any helmet not complying with the prescribed requirements. Draft regulations have been circulated to the parties interested for comment.

Mr. Crouch: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that a large number of fatal motor cycle accidents occur as a result of no crash helmet being worn? Is he not aware of the number of riders which he must have received from coroners' juries asking that he should make the wearing of crash helmets compulsory? Has not the time arrived when the right hon. Gentleman should preserve the lives of these people, who apparently do not worry about them themselves?

Mr. Watkinson: I am well aware of the point, and my hon. Friend knows that we have been corresponding on the matter. The House decided that it was better to make compulsory a proper standard of helmet and then rely upon the normal processes of publicity, etc., to ensure the use of them.

Captain Duncan: Has my right hon. Friend prescribed regulations with regard to standards?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir, and they are being circulated for comment. As soon as I have that, I will implement them.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Would it not be a good thing to abolish Purchase Tax on those helmets?

Derby—Macclesfield Road (Speed Limit)

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now reverse his decision to remove the speed limit on the Ashbourne Road, Derby, from its junction with Kingsway to its junction with Prince Charles Avenue; whether he will now agree to impose a speed limit on the Derby—Macclesfield Road from Prince Charles Avenue to Radbourne Lane as requested by the Derby Borough Council; and whether he is aware of the strong feeling in the Derby Borough Council, the Derby Road Safety Committee, and among the Derby public on these questions.

Mr. Watkinson: I am afraid I have nothing to add to the Answer which I gave the right hon. Gentleman on 31st October which said in general that a speed limit would not help in this case.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very grave matter on which the Derby Council, the Derby Road Safety Committee, the Derby Chief Constable and police and the Watch Committee are unanimously against him, together with the inhabitants of the Mackworth Estate? Is he aware that, while he was considering the position, a cyclist was killed on this stretch of road and that three weeks ago a little girl of seven was knocked down and seriously injured and escaped only by a miracle? [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite appear to be laughing, but this is not a laughing matter.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the next day an old lady who was taking flowers to her husband's grave was killed by a motorist who was travelling at 40 m.p.h.—travelling legitimately at that speed because the Minister had taken off the restriction? Is he aware that on Monday this week another old lady aged 82 was killed by a bus? How many more Derby citizens have to be killed before the right hon. Gentleman makes a sensible decision?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: On a point of order. Would you inform me, Mr. Speaker, whether there is a set of rules for Members on the Front Bench different from the rules for Members on the back benches?

Mr. Speaker: There is no difference of rule at all. In fact, I expect right hon. Gentlemen to set a good example in these matters, but as to the length of the supplementary question, it is quite true that this is a very important matter to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker).

Mr. Noel-Baker: In asking the Minister to answer, may I explain that this is the first Question that I have been able to ask for my constituents for eighteen months and that the feeling in the whole of Derby is very strong?

Group Captain Wilcock: rose—

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Group Captain Wilcock.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I have an answer from the Minister?

Mr. Speaker: It may be convenient to have two questions and an answer on the same matter.

Group Captain Wilcock: Is the Minister aware that this is a very serious matter to the inhabitants of Derby? Will he say whether his Department is regarded as being in a better position than the police and the Corporation of Derby and all the people of that area to know whether this is a dangerous stretch of road or not? If his Department is supposed to know best, will he consider a public inquiry in Derby into this matter?

Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly consider anything that will cut down road accidents. As the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) and the hon. and gallant Member know, we have had very long correspondence about this particularly difficult stretch of road, and both my authorities and the local authorities have had meetings and have carefully looked into the matter. All that I am saying at the moment is that I do not think that a speed limit is the right answer. I do not for a moment rule out that we may be able to find another solution. I am perfectly willing to have a meeting on the subject if the right hon. Member for Derby, South thinks that would help to find a solution.

Mr. Noel-Baker: As the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the correspondence, may I ask whether he is aware that his last letter, dated 23rd October, was addressed and sent not to me but to my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. F. Noel-Baker)? Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman had not read it before he sent it? Is he aware that the letter, written by the Parliamentary Secretary, defended this action on the ground that there have been only 31 accidents in three years on this stretch of road? Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman did not read the letter before he sent it?

Mr. Speaker: This sounds to me to be a very excellent subject to raise on the Adjournment.

Mr. Noel-Baker: On a point of order. In view of the extremely unsatisfactory nature of what the Minister has said, I propose to ask him to receive a deputation from Derby Council, and I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Road Haulage Assets (Disposal)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the total amount realised to date by disposal of assets of the road haulage undertaking of the British Transport Commission; and the total loss incurred.

Mr. Watkinson: I would refer the hon. Member to the Seventh Report of the Road Haulage Disposal Board for the latest available figures of the total amount realised. Under the Transport (Disposal of Road Haulage Property) Act, 1956, I am no longer required to make estimates of the total loss incurred by the Commission but I have no reason to believe that any amendment is necessary to my last estimate which I gave in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 1st February, 1956.

Mr. Davies: Since the total of the amounts realised from these unnecessary sales is £24½ million, and the Minister has previously estimated losses at only £13 million, does he still think, in view of the fact that the original cost was about three times more than the amount realised, that the loss will be so limited to £13 million? Does he not agree with the Transport Commission's Report that the Commission will have to write off a further loss to meet the deficit?

Mr. Watkinson: What I think is that this account is now closed, on lines approved and settled by the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Jet Aircraft Noise, London Airport

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will take steps under Section 41 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949, to regulate the noise caused on aerodromes by the new jet aircraft which British Overseas Airways Corporation is purchasing from the United States of America.

Mr. Watkinson: In the leases which I have granted to it in the Maintenance Area at London Airport, the Corporation has accepted the obligation to take all reasonable measures to abate noise. I am confident that it will carry it out and that the need to use statutory powers for this purpose is not likely to arise.

Mr. Skeffington: Would the Minister say whether his Answer includes the possibility of fitting silencers to this new type of aircraft operating from London Airport? I understand that quite considerable progress has been made. Will he bear in mind that the residents there, some of whom were living there long before the aerodrome came into being, have suffered excruciatingly, and that something ought to be done to alleviate their very great fears for the future?

Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree with what the hon. Member has said. I think he will know that a lot of work is going on. The Conway engine, which will be fitted to these new aircraft, is rather quieter than some jets. Work is going on with mufflers on engines for work on the ground, and with special designs of a jet nozzle. Much is being done, but it is too early yet to say what success we shall have.

Irish Republic (Agreement)

Mr. Watkins: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what consultations he has had with the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation on the recent Anglo-Eireann Agreement.

Mr. Watkinson: My predecessor discussed the revision of the Agreement with a deputation from the Council last year and its views were taken into account during the negotiations with the Irish Republican authorities.

Mr. Watkins: What recent consultations has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Council? My information is there has not been any consultation at all. I should know, for I am a member of it.

Mr. Watkinson: What I said was—and I have no doubt that the hon. Member knows it to be true—that consultations took place with my predecessor. A memorandum was submitted, and I am advised that the agreement which has been come to covers most of the points raised in the memorandum.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Additional Military Expenditure

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Defence what is now the total of additional military expenditure, not included in the original Estimates of the


Service Departments for the current year, to the latest date for which figures are available.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Antony Head): About £13 million to 31st October, 1956.

Mr. Swingler: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is already a terribly high price to pay for the Government's folly in trying and failing to seize Suez? What steps is he taking to cut the cost to the minimum, in view of the fact that the arms budget for which he is responsible is already so over-inflated?

Mr. Head: This cost has been incurred and cannot be cut.

Reservists

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement indicating how long it is intended to retain in the Armed Forces the reservists recalled during August this year.

Mr. Head: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made last night by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.

Mr. Swingler: Cannot the Minister of Defence be more specific? As these men have been recalled now for several months and have had the arduous and odious task of carrying out Government policy, would he not agree that they deserve a break? Cannot he be more specific and give an assurance that as soon as the troops are withdrawn from Suez, the reservists can be demobilised and sent back to their proper occupations?

Mr. Head: My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal said last night that no reservists would be retained for one day longer than was absolutely necessary for operational and other reasons.

Mr. Stokes: With great respect, that is a pig-headed point of view. On what military grounds can the right hon. Gentleman really justify the retention of reservists in this country at present? Surely, he knows just as well as I do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Better."]—I know a damn sight better than hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is really letting his eloquence run away with him.

Mr. Stokes: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, but I meant what I said. May I ask the Minister of Defence on what grounds he sustains this position? Surely he knows perfectly well that he can make such arrangements that these reservists could be recalled summarily, by short notice, by wireless and telegram. There would be no difficulty if he set about it and organised it.

Mr. Head: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, in describing the answer as being pig-headed, is rushing to conclusions. All I said was that no reservists would be retained for a day longer than was necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman uses his head, which I will not describe with any adjective, he will realise that the answer means that a reservist in this country, not required for the present emergency, would be released.

Egypt (Israeli Operations)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Minister of Defence if he will state the time and date on which the officer commanding British troops in Aquaba became aware that Israeli troops were undertaking a major operation against Egypt; and the time and date on which the information reached Headquarters, Middle East.

Mr. Head: G.H.Q. Middle East first heard that Israeli troops were undertaking a major operation against Egypt in a signal from Tel Aviv, which reached them at 23.30—local time—on 29th October. The signal was repeated with emergency priority to the British force at Aquaba. It may be, however, that they first heard the news on the wireless the following morning.

Mr. Wigg: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer, may I point out that he has not answered my Question? At Aquaba there is an armoured regiment, the 10th Hussars. At what time did they know that Israeli troops were crossing, because it was in that vicinity that they crossed?

Mr. Head: They did not know anything about the major attack, but they reported by a signal that guns had passed through Elath at 05.30, and that on the nights of 27–28th and 28–29th October 'planes had landed at Elath and had taken off after dark. Their supposition was that Elath was being reinforced.

Mr. Wigg: In other words the Government, in fact, received confirmation on the 27th? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement confirms the belief that there was collusion? [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Oh, yes, it confirms that there was collusion, and that the Government knew well in advance the nature of the Israeli operation.

Mr. Head: The hon. Gentleman is jumping to extraordinary conclusions. All that the force at Aquaba did was to report this movement, which looked as though Elath was being reinforced, but there was no indication, either locally or as a result of the signal, that any major operation was taking place.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Minister, regardless of what the troops on the spot learned, whether he knew beforehand of the impending attack?

Mr. Head: I am telling the right hon. Gentleman that we knew by this signal which came from Tel Aviv.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have spent a lot of time on this Question. Mr. Wigg. Question No. 34.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. In view of the evasive nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I shall take an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

United States Material (Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Minister of Defence if he will state the conditions under which the United States Government supplied material under the offshore purchases agreements; and if he will give an assurance that these conditions have been observed.

Mr. Head: The conditions governing the supply of such material are set out in the Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement of 1950, published as Cmd. 7894.
In reply to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the information I gave him in this House on 3rd November.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman realises the serious nature of this Question. Would he again state categorically

whether any off-shore purchased equipment has been used, in contravention of that Agreement, in the Middle East operation?

Mr. Head: I have told the hon. Gentleman before that it is impossible to divide this equipment into two categories, one entirely restricted to off-shore purchase, and the other not. It is hopelessly muddled up throughout the whole of our Forces and therefore it is impossible to do that.

Mr. Paget: Is not the answer that we should not make agreements which we know we cannot keep?

Leaflets, Cairo

Mr. Benn: asked the Minister of Defence why he authorised the dropping of the leaflets over Cairo by Royal Air Force aeroplanes on the night of Saturday, 3rd November; and if he will circulate with the OFFICIAL REPORT the full text of these leaflets.

Mr. Head: The leaflet to which the hon. Member refers was dropped on the authority of the Allied Commander-in-Chief. I will circulate the text in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Benn: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the leaflets dropped on Cairo told the Egyptian people that our only quarrel with them was over the ownership and operation of the Canal; why these were dropped within a few hours of the Prime Minister saying that the Canal was not in his mind; and will the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House the date on which that leaflet was printed, and confirm that it had been prepared for an intervention for a totally different cause?

Mr. Head: I cannot answer that question without notice, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a general directive was given to the Allied Commander-in-Chief to make use of pamphlets and other means of psychological warfare to avoid casualties. Within those terms of reference he had to act on the spot, and it is impossible to have direct supervision from this country of every pamphlet produced.

Mr. Stokes: While that may very well be so, does not the right hon. Gentleman remember that in psychological warfare in


the last war the effect of our attacking Hitler by pamphlets was to rally the Germans behind him? The effect of these pamphlets, lambasting Nasser, has only been to rally the Egyptians behind him. Really the right hon. Gentleman ought to know better than to allow the propagandists in his Department to behave in this disreputable manner.

Mr. Head: This type of warfare is a highly technical matter. I believe that the expert in the last war was the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man). All I can say is that it is extremely rash to try to assess the effects of psychological warfare on one pamphlet in one instance.

Air Commodore Harvey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only yesterday hon. Gentlemen opposite were complaining about the lack of preparation, and now that they find that preparations had been made, they are still complaining.

Following is the text of the leaflet:
People of Egypt.
Why has this calamity descended upon you?
Because the Nasser Government was foolish enough to seize the Suez Canal which is vital to world interests.
Because the Nasser Government was foolish enough to reject all appeals to agree to the reasonable solution suggested by the 18 Powers.
Because the actions taken by Nasser and a handful of his ambitious and ruthless colleagues have precipitated the Israeli attack on Egypt provoking a conflict which we profoundly deplore, the kind of conflict the world dreaded and wished to prevent.
The world interest requires that war shall cease instantly in this vital area. The Allied Forces have intervened immediately and will do so with increasing force until peace has been re-established.
We advance no claims on Egypt or on the Canal save one.
The Canal must be placed above national politics and quarrels between nations.
It must be safeguarded against the consequences of a war provoked by Nasser's foolishness. Only so can the world's and Egypt's interests prosper in fruitful co-operation.
Remember that we have the might to obtain our objectives and we shall use all of it if necessary.
O Egyptian people your choice is clear.
Either accept the Allied proposals which will bring you peace with honour and prosperity or accept the consequences of Nasser's policy which will bring you heavy retribution not only to the few who are guilty but also to you—the many—who are innocent.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (TRADE)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made in the review of the present restrictions on trade with China; and if he will now give instructions to the United Kingdom delegate on the Paris Consultative Group to propose a progressive relaxation of these restrictions.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds- Parker): I have nothing to add to the reply given on 29th October to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that his previous reply added nothing, in fact it merely stated that the situation was the same as it was six or twelve months ago? Does it mean that the Government have now given up any idea of reviewing the embargo list or of trying to expand opportunities for trade with China, or what is happening?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: No, Sir, as my right hon. Friend informed the hon. Gentleman, we are continuing to use the exceptions procedure in relation to this trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARIAN GOVERNMENT (RECOGNITION)

Mr. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government intend to recognise the new Hungarian Government, either de jure or de facto; and whether Her Majesty's Government intend to recognise the authority of the new Hungarian representatives to vote at the United Nations organisation.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: On 8th November the Credentials Committee of the Special Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations agreed
not to take any decision regarding the credentials of the representatives of Hungary at this time pending further clarification.
Her Majesty's Government accept that conclusion and consider that it is too soon to take any decision about the recognition of the new Hungarian Government.

Mr. Teeling: Will my right hon. Friend realise how pleased everybody will be at that statement, and will he also bear in


mind that it has taken many years for Red China to be recognised, and that in the United Nations she is even now not recognised? In view of the fact that it is obvious that there is nobody in Hungary who has elected the present Government, would my hon. Friend please take great care that the British Government do not recognise the new Hungarian Government until they are certain of what is happening?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Yes, Sir. My right hon. and learned Friend considers it premature formally to recognise the new Government at this stage. For that reason, if the Credentials Committee of the General Assembly decides to recognise the credentials of the Hungarian representatives before my right hon. and learned Friend has reached a decision on the question of recognition, Sir Pierson Dixon will abstain from voting on its recommendations.

Mr. Paget: What is the position of the present Hungarian Chargé d'Affaires—I think he is not Ambassador—in London at the moment?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: That has not been decided, and will not be until a decision is taken on the other matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOMALILAND PROTECTORATE

Internal Security Forces

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that there are adequate tribal police and other security forces in British Somaliland for the defence of tribesmen under Her Majesty's protection against Ethiopian pressure; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): In the Somali-land Protectorate there are the Somaliland Scouts, Protectorate Police Force and Tribal Police (Illaloes). I am satisfied that these forces are adequate for all normal purposes of internal security, although the possibility of providing reinforcements in the event of attack from any quarter outside the Protectorate has not been overlooked.

Mr. J. Johnson: May I ask the Minister whether he has seen in The Times today the letter of the Ethiopian

Ambassador? In view of that, would the right hon. Gentleman consider approaching the Ethiopian Government with a view to setting up a border commission, a fact-finding commission, perhaps under the United Nations, to investigate these facts which are in dispute by both sides?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir, of course I saw the letter this morning. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I had talks with the Foreign Minister from Ethiopia during the various Suez conferences in London.

Mr. Dugdale: Might I ask the Colonial Secretary two questions? First, will he afford adequate protection to these small tribes who are grazing their stock in the Haud and up to now have not had such protection? Secondly, as the Ethiopian Government have observed the 1954 Agreement in neither the spirit nor the letter, will he terminate it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am very anxious that the spirit of the Agreement should be observed on both sides in the way in which it has been observed on our side. The Governor is at present reviewing the question of the size of the Illalo force in those territories.

Mr. Awbery: Will the right hon. Gentleman hold an inquiry into the position in that part of the country, because it is causing considerable trouble between the tribes?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: There is little doubt about the facts, and there is no need for further inquiry. The need now is for full observance of the undertakings.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GUIANA

Constitution

Miss Lee: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies who among the leaders of the main political parties in British Guiana have indicated their approval of the proposed new Constitution for their country.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: None, Sir, but this certainly does not imply that many of them will not be quite ready to work it.

Miss Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that civilised opinion throughout the world is outraged by the refusal of the Russians to allow the Hungarians to


choose their own Government? Will he say what distinction there is between his behaviour and that of the Russians when he is refusing to allow the people of British Guiana to have the kind of constitutional government that they want?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Lady ought to know perfectly well that when, reluctantly, we withdrew the constitution for British Guiana, that action was greeted with a sigh of relief by the mass of the people. In reply to the point of her supplementary question, I would say that it is often thought difficult by politicians, not only in British Guiana, but elsewhere, to endorse publicly something which falls short of what they have asked for. However, I believe that this Constitution will be worked, and that is what really matters.

Miss Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not been able to state the name of one leader of one main political party in British Guiana who is willing to accept the Constitution? Is it necessary that he should have to go through all the phases of revolution in British Guiana? Will he not short-circuit the process by applying certain democratic standards?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Lady had better wait and see what happens. I think she is in for a big surprise.

Miss Lee: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is prepared to invite the leaders of the main political parties in British Guiana to attend a conference in London in order to see if wider common agreement can be reached in regard to the proposed new Constitution for British Guiana.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir. I have made it clear how far Her Majesty's Government are prepared to go at this stage. The next step is to hold the elections and to see how far those returned at the polls are prepared to try to make a success of the new democratic Constitution which will be introduced.

Miss Lee: Is the Minister aware that even Dr. Jagan and Mr. Burnham, leaders of the Left, of whom, apparently, he is afraid, are willing to give—they have publicly said so—a guarantee that if their parties are elected at the next election in British Guiana they will not establish

a one-party dictatorship, which is the excuse which the right hon. Gentleman gives for not permitting democracy in British Guiana? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider their propositions? Will he call the leaders to this country and try to obtain a Constitution which will work?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to my Answer, save to say that I hope that the undertakings which they are giving in British Guiana will be observed in practice, and I have every intention of allowing opportunity for them to be so observed.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: How can the right hon. Gentleman describe as democratic a Constitution which allows only 50 per cent. of the representation in the Legislature to be elected?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think that the hon. Gentleman himself was surprised when I felt able to recommend this step forward in British Guiana. I think it is a sign of strength that, despite the unhappy experience of recent years, we are prepared to take this experimental step. How far it will be justified is now in the hands of the people of British Guiana.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Armed Forces, Egypt (Pensions and Allowances)

Mr. W. Edwards: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will give an assurance that the members of Her Majesty's Forces and their dependants will receive the same pension and compensation rights in the armed conflict with Egypt as they would if Her Majesty's Government has declared a state of war with Egypt.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Yes, Sir. The provisions for the award of pensions and allowances under the pensions instruments which I administer are the same in all cases in which disablement or death arises in consequence of service in the Armed Forces. Questions of compensation for loss of personal effects by members of the forces are the responsibility of the Service Department concerned but I understand from my right hon. Friends that the position is similar

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Petrol Supplies

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what preparations have now been made to introduce petrol rationing; when it is likely that it will be introduced; and on what basis petrol is to be allocated.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Aubrey Jones): Coupons have been printed and the provision of the necessary staff and accommodation is in train. Details of the rationing scheme will be announced if and when the occasion arises.

Mr. Dodds: Has not information been received during the past twenty-four hours which shows that the situation in the Suez Canal is much graver than was anticipated? Is it not vital that every gallon of petrol should be saved at the earliest possible moment? Is it not now obvious what a terrible price we have to pay for the Prime Minister's folly?

Mr. Jones: What the hon. Gentleman has said is certainly not within my knowledge. Indeed, within the last thirty-six hours the Egyptian authorities themselves have declared that the Canal can be opened within a month or two months, and that puts quite a different complexion upon matters. I am satisfied, in the light of the information available, that the restrictions so far imposed will prevent an undue drain on stocks.

Mr. H. Wilson: In view of statements in many national newspapers, including The Times, that petrol rationing is now inevitable, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the very widespread opinion in the country that, following the Taunton precedent, the Government are holding over the announcement of petrol rationing until the Chester by-election is over?

Mr. Speaker: The Taunton by-election is not within the Minister's responsibility.

Mr. Harold Davies: While we are certain that the right hon. Gentleman will do his utmost to ensure a fair allocation of the ration, might I ask him to present the nation with a White Paper showing how he will allocate—this is much more important—fuel to the steel industry, the pottery industry and the glass industry, which have turned over to oil burning?
In respect of the Measure relating to the white fish industry, does the right hon. Gentleman still intend that the fishing industry shall go in for oil-burning vessels, or does the present situation alter the Government's policy?

Mr. Jones: If the situation demands a more severe restriction than that now imposed, I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement on the situation in respect of the 10 per cent. cut in petrol supplies to garages; and whether he is satisfied that the small independent garages are receiving the same treatment as those belonging to the oil companies.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: It is too early to assess the effect upon garages of these restrictions, but I am sure that dealers are making a genuine effort to distribute supplies on the basis I proposed. The oil companies have given me an undertaking that they will apply the cut fairly as between dealers supplied by one company only and dealers supplied by several companies, and I am satisfied that they are respecting this undertaking.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Sunday there were record numbers of motorists on the road? Also, is he aware that garage owners are saying that they will not be able to supply petrol at the end of the month because many motorists are taking from them all the petrol they can get and then returning to their homes and syphoning it out? Is he not aware of what is happening?

Mr. Jones: I must dispute the situation as described by the hon. Member. It is too early to assess the effect of the 10 per cent. cut; after all, it is only a week old. However, to my knowledge, the reactions so far are not as described by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Crouch: Does the 10 per cent. cut apply to diesel fuel used for opencast mining? Is this not a time when we should have a larger output of opencast coal and not allow it to be decreased as a result of the present situation?

Mr. Jones: As I explained a week ago, the 10 per cent. cut is subject to extremely few exceptions. If the cut were to become more severe—after all, the situation is


being reviewed from day to day—then the consideration adduced by my hon. Friend would most certainly be borne in mind.

Mr. Callaghan: Might we have a little more guidance about the factors which the Government will take into account in deciding whether petrol rationing is necessary or not? Is it that the Government do not know how long the Canal will be shut, that they do not know what stocks they have, or that they do not know how much they will get from the United States? What are we waiting for? I put Chester on one side. Is it the case that the Government know already that petrol rationing is necessary but have not the courage to tell the country yet?

Mr. Jones: If the hon. Gentleman will exercise patience, he will hear the better or the worse in due time.

Mr. Callaghan: When?

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT

Sir A. Braithwaite: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 30th November, I shall call attention to Commonwealth development, and move a Resolution.

OTTAWA AGREEMENTS AND G.A.T.T.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 30th November, I shall call attention to the need to review the Ottawa Agreements and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and move a Resolution.

AGED PERSONS (DOMICILIARY SERVICES)

Mr. Dodds: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 30th November, I shall call attention to the need to expand domiciliary services for the aged, and move a Resolution.

Orders of the Day — POLICE, FIRE AND PROBATION OFFICERS REMUNERATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.32 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Major Gwilym Lloyd-George): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I can assure the House that I shall be brief. As the House will observe, this Bill is very short, and I do not think that it will take me long to explain what lies behind it.
The object of the Bill is to remove a defect in the existing law—a defect which is common to the statutes governing the pay and allowances of the police forces, fire brigades and the probation service in England and Wales and in Scotland. Those statutes provide that the Secretary of State may make regulations or rules prescribing the rates of pay and allowances of members of those services. They do not, however, provide that such regulations or rules may be made with retrospective effect, and for some years now it has been the accepted interpretation of the law that, in the absence of an express provision in the parent Statute to that effect, subordinate legislation may not purport to operate retrospectively.
Consequently, it has not been possible to back-date awards of pay to members of those three services which I have just mentioned. In other fields of employment pay agreements or awards nowadays not uncommonly provide for a measure of retrospection in appropriate cases, but if there is a case for back-dating an increase of pay either to the police forces, or the fire or probation services, similar action is not possible because, under the existing law, there is no power to give effect to an agreement or an award from a date earlier than that on which the relevant statutory instrument is made.
The Bill seeks to put an end to that unsatisfactory position. I feel sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be in general agreement that this Measure is desirable and necessary. Negotiations are often protracted, and for this and other reasons it is sometimes right and proper that an increase of pay should be brought into force from


a date earlier than that on which an agreement is reached or an arbitral award made. There is no need for me to dwell at length on the events which have led up to the introduction of the Bill, but the House may like me to recall them very briefly.
In October, 1946, the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders called attention to certain Statutory Instruments which purported to have retrospective effect although the parent Statute contained no express provision authorising this to be done. The Committee said that this was an improper use of the regulating-making power. Since then it has been the policy of successive Governments not to make Statutory Instruments with retrospective effect in the absence of express statutory authority.
It has been recognised that this has operated to the disadvantage of members of those services whose pay is prescribed in regulations, and—let the House remember this—who had previously been granted retrospective pay awards from time to time. In December, 1955, the arbitrators appointed by the Prime Minister awarded an increase of pay to the federated ranks of the police. This increase was given effect forthwith. In May, 1956, the arbitrators made a further award, recommending that the increases brought into force in December, 1955, should be backdated to 8th September, 1955. This award called attention to the need for some amending provision.
The Government gave urgent consideration to the matter and, as I announced in the House on 12th July, they decided to introduce legislation as soon as practicable to enable pay awards to have effect from such date as might be agreed in negotiation or be recommended in consequence of arbitration. That statement was confined to police pay awards, but the Government have thought it right that the change in the law for which the Bill provides should apply not only to the police, but to the members of two other services within the province of the Home Office and the Scottish Home Department whose pay is also prescribed by Statutory Instrument and is negotiated under similar arrangements. The Bill accordingly applies to the police, fire and probation services.
In July, it still remained to consider whether the legislation which the Government had undertaken to introduce should provide for this change to have effect only in the future, or whether it should be so drafted that effect could be given to the arbitrators' recommendation that the police pay award of December, 1955, should be back-dated. Many hon. Members had indicated that they thought it right that power should be taken to enable that award to be implemented, although there was room for an alternative view that the limitations of the existing law were known to all parties when the original award was made.
Contrary to suggestions made at that time, the local police authorities, whose representatives form a large majority of the official side of the negotiating body, had not expressed themselves as being in favour of this proposal, and the Government, quite rightly, I think, did not think it right to take a final decision on the point until they had had the opportunity of discussing the matter with the local police authorities who, after all, pay the police and on whom half the cost of implementing the recommendation would fall.
After consulting the police authorities, the Government decided that the Bill should be so drafted as to enable the December award to be back-dated, and this has been done. It has been possible to embody in a very short Bill the legislation which is required for these purposes. All that it is necessary for the Bill to do is to provide, first, that regulations made under the relevant Acts prescribing the rates of pay and allowances of members of police forces, members of fire brigades or probation officers in England and Wales and in Scotland may be made with retrospective effect to a specified date; and, secondly, that such regulations or rules may be made with retrospective effect to a date not earlier than 8th September, 1955.
The House will observe that the Bill provides that reductions, as opposed to increases, in pay or allowances shall not operate retrospectively. The Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland since, as the House knows, the pay and allowances of these services in Northern Ireland are matters within the jurisdiction of the Government of Northern Ireland.
This short Bill will take up little space in the Statute Book, and it should not, I would hope, occupy a great deal of parliamentary time. But it will, I am sure, do much to facilitate the smooth working of the negotiating machinery for the three services to which it applies. Furthermore, it will remove a sense of injustice, a feeling that members of those services are handicapped in their pay negotiations. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom have already expressed their sympathy with the object of the Bill, will unite in giving it a speedy passage.

3.44 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: I am pleased that the Home Secretary gave some account of the history behind this Bill and reminded us of the steps taken in December, 1955, and in May and July this year. This history is of interest to anyone concerned with the way in which parliamentary government works. There was considerable pressure on the Government from all quarters of the House. The Government had a bad case to argue. It may be, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned, that the Government were in a difficult position on one point because, after all, they were much concerned with the attitude of local police authorities who would have to foot the major part of the Bill.
The fact remains that the Bill has been a triumph of the House over the Government. Those who think, quite rightly, of the declining power of Parliament against Governments of whatever type welcome the Bill as an example of what can be done when there is a real sense of injustice and when hon. Members in all quarters of the House take up the matter.
There are bound to be other groups who will ask for similar legislation, but that, of course, is outside the scope of this Bill. I can say that since the sense of injustice which hampered the negotiations is now being removed, this Bill will be welcomed by policemen, firemen and probation officers and by all the many hon. Members who championed their cause. I thank the Home Secretary for introducing the Bill.

3.46 p.m.

Mr. Frederic Harris: I agree with the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) who said that all

hon. Members had desired to see this Bill introduced. We are all very pleased about it. However, I do not agree that the Government resisted the proposal in any way at all. As soon as they were made aware of the wishes of hon. Members they appeared to be very anxious indeed to meet those wishes.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary referred to the history of the arbitration award. I do not think there is any need to go over that history again. I am certain that hon. Members on both sides of the House felt that the award should be able to be back-dated. There was a sense of injustice in the police force owing to the inability to get it back-dated. I know that during the last 12 months recruiting to the police force has much improved and I am sure that anything which contributes to the improvement of conditions in the force must greatly assist in attracting further recruits.
We are all aware that there is still a shortage of police manpower in the country. In my own town, Croydon, and in the area which the Croydon police cover, about 49 square miles, there is a shortage of 120 people in the force. In the matter of recruiting, I am sure that the Bill is going to do a great deal of good. All of us are great admirers of the work undertaken in this country by the police and not one of us would wish them to feel any sense of injustice whatsoever.
On an earlier occasion, one right hon. Gentleman opposite said that there would be no need to delay the Bill when it came before the House. This afternoon is an obvious instance of that. The Bill can go through in a matter of minutes because all of us are in agreement with it.
It is very pleasant to see a Bill come before the House on which there is no argument on either side and which everyone supports. It is a very important Measure as far as the police forces are concerned and I am sure that it will be welcomed by them. I hope the Bill will do something to close the gap in recruitment. It is a step in the right direction and I am very grateful to my right hon. and gallant Friend for bringing it forward this afternoon.

3.50 p.m.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: I should like to join in the appreciation of this short Bill. Perhaps one of the most difficult things to do is to remedy injustices, and the police forces of the country, particularly the one in my area, did express a sense of frustration at the fact that no retrospective payment as a result of the award which had been agreed was to be made. When negotiating machinery is established which allows disputes to go to arbitration, the process takes time, and if there is no retrospective payment following discussion and agreement, those who are hoping for an increase feel very frustrated indeed.
The Bill has become necessary because the Oaksey Committee made recommendations with reference to arbitration machinery in arranging for and making regulations regarding police pay, whereas in the past police pay had been decided by the Home Office without negotiation and there was, accordingly, no need for any regulation or Bill about retrospective pay; once it was decided, there was no way of arguing about it or disputing it. As the use of negotiating machinery is extended, if it is necessary in other directions apart from the police, fire and probation officers—and I think that there have been and are still times when Departments can make arrangements about increases without negotiation—this matter should be looked at at the same time as increases are being considered, because there would then be a saving of time and we should, if the whole job were done at once, avoid the upset and frustration which is felt.
There is not a great deal which may be said about the Bill, because there is no argument about it. There is, however, just one thing I wish to put to the Home Secretary. When this matter first arose in the House after the decision had been taken about what was to be paid, many policemen said to themselves, "We are soon going on our holidays, and we shall have a little extra pay to use on our holidays during the summer." That was denied to them. Can the Government Secretary expedite this Bill through all its stages in this House and in another place so that the Home Secretary, through his Department, and the local authorities will be able to ensure that policemen will have the payment in time for Christmas? They

have put that to me quite definitely, and that is the feeling they want me to express.
I hope that when the Home Secretary replies to the debate on this non-controversial Bill, which is very necessary indeed, he will be able to give the House an assurance that its passage will in no way be held up so as to prevent policemen receiving the retrospective pay before the Christmas holidays.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. H. R. Spence: For a number of years now I have been a member of the Statutory Instruments Committee to which the Home Secretary referred when commending this Bill to the House. It is our duty, in that Committee, to scrutinise all Statutory Rules and Orders, not to consider their merits but to consider their legality. One of the terms of reference under which we work is that legislation shall not be retrospective.
We have seen in the past, and we appreciate, the difficulty which does arise when negotiations on wage claims are concluded and a settlement takes place; there is inevitably a lapse of time between the reaching of the settlement and the publication of the Order. I am sure that all members of the Committee welcome this new legislation. We shall look forward to the process of the House of Commons varying our terms of reference in due course so that we, for our part, will be able to add our approval to that now being given by the House this afternoon.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: The House is aware of my personal position in relation to the Police Federation. Perhaps I may be allowed to say how proud I am to have been able to give the Federation consultation, advice and help over the past 18 months. I hope that the association between us has been of benefit to everybody, not least to the Home Office as well as to the police service.
The police very much desire to take fullest advantage of, and work properly, this machinery of negotiation and arbitration, and to benefit from the recommendations of the Oaksey Committee. It is the sincere and strong desire of all those in the police forces that at all times this machinery should be used


to the full. I have made it clear to the Federation in all I have ever said that the position of the police will be strongest if they rely upon this machinery and do not expect to have to come to Parliament in order to have their grievances put right, and that it must be the aim of everyone to ensure that recourse to Parliament is the last thing to happen, not the first.
Looking back over this series of events which started on 8th November, 1955, just over a year ago, I think it can fairly be said for the Police Federation that it exhausted every constitutional opportunity and right given to it under the machinery. It was only when that machinery had been exhausted, and the Federation thought that there was still a grievance which ought to be aired, that it sought the assistance of Members of Parliament. I hope the Federation will continue to do that, and will use its own machinery to the full.
It is my hope that, during the period in which I may be associated with the Federation, this machinery will be built up and consolidated into such an impregnable position that it will command such respect on both sides, on the part of the employers, the local authorities and the Home Office on the one hand, and on the part of the police themselves on the other, that there will be no disposition to bring disputes to the House of Commons any more than the Civil Service brings its disputes to the House of Commons. That is what we must aim at.
The situation demands something from both sides. It demands forbearance from the police and a realisation that they cannot expect to have grievances publicly aired. It also demands something from the Home Office. I ask the Home Secretary to believe me when I say that I put this to him in the interests of the service as a whole. The situation demands from the Home Office a basic understanding of how these problems of administration and man-management should be handled. One simply cannot take an administrative official in the Home Office, push him into a job like this, which means looking after the affairs of 70,000 men, without experience, and hope that he will be able to become a first-class administrative officer. He may, but the odds are that he will not.
What this job needs is not brilliance of intellect on the official side. It requires human sympathy, integrity and understanding. These qualities have been developed, if I may say so, in the Treasury on the establishment side where Civil Service matters are handled through the National Whitley Council. There has been built up a team of officers who have been especially trained to handle these problems.
I put it to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that if this machinery is to work well, and is to be responsive and useful, then, in the Home Office, also, the officers concerned in handling these matters must be trained and selected with the same care. A similar cadre must be built up there as has been built up in the Civil Service.
I should like to congratulate the Home Secretary on introducing the first Bill in this new Session. This morning he addressed the annual conference of the Police Federation, and several hundred policemen there greeted him vociferously when he said that he was going to introduce the first Bill in the new Session. That is not to suggest, of course, that the two events were related, but I know that he had a splendid reception this morning because he was able to say that. I congratulate him upon the interest he has shown and the speed with which he has acted in this matter. It has undoubtedly—I will not say restored the faith—emphasised and encouraged the faith the police service has in this new machinery which has been established. Policemen feel that they can rely upon it to produce results.
I shall not touch on all the points which have been made, but I should like to make one or two references to what has been said. The Home Secretary told us that the local authorities were not in favour, or, at least, did not express themselves as being in favour, of this back pay. There has been much negotiation on this and I should not be entitled to quote from anything private, but I think I am entitled to quote from what has been made public in the matter of the arbitration awards.
Let me remind the Home Secretary that the attitude of the local authorities was interpreted by the arbitrator as long


ago as 14th December, 1955. The arbitrator said of the official side:
The official side, however, expressed their sympathy, which we share, towards some measure of retrospective operation being given to any increase in pay awarded.
There are words after that which do not affect the point. If local authorities now, or at some stage in recent months, have indicated that they are not in favour of retrospection they certainly did not give that impression to the arbitrator last December.

Major Lloyd-George: I can explain those two points to the hon. Gentleman. As to the question of retrospection relating to future dates, there was no dispute on that even in July when I made the suggestion of legislation. As to retrospective payment to September last year, I had to reserve the position on 12th July. I said I could not possibly undertake that until I had consulted the local authorities.

Mr. Callaghan: I quite agree with the Home Secretary. The Association of Municipal Corporations indicated recently that it was not very enthusiastic.

Major Lloyd-George: There are two different points. On one the hon. Gentleman is quite right. On the second, I could not have given an undertaking in July until I had approached the local authorities.

Mr. Callaghan: I quite appreciate that. The view of the official side, as interpreted by the arbitrator, who had an opportunity of listening to it for two days, is that they were in favour last December of some back pay being given. It is as well to get that on the record.
I should like to emphasise three points. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has taken up the point which has been put to many of us that in a number of forces it takes about five weeks between agreement being come to and turning out the result. That will bring us very near to Christmas. Does the Home Secretary not think that it would be possible informally to have a word with the authorities to ensure that the police get this pay before Christmas? It is due from 8th September, and will be of great help to them. Secondly, will he confirm that officers who were in post on 8th September but have subsequently retired will be included in the back pay

award? I believe I am right in saying that superintendents have had back pay awarded to them on a previous occasion. No doubt it will be the desire of the Home Secretary to do so.
Thirdly, I am grateful to the Home Secretary for including fire brigade and probation officers. He and I have had private conversations about this and I have always expressed my view that they ought to come in. It is common form in all these negotiations. We are trying, as a House of Commons, to put right something that has been wrong in the services because of a technical difficulty. I thank the Home Secretary for the speed with which he has introduced the Bill.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: We do the Bill an injustice by describing it as a little Measure that can be hurried through without spending much time on its provisions. It raises two very important points to which the House might very well give serious consideration.
We cannot consider the first one without being clear that the Home Secretary does not employ police. They are employed, in the main, by the local authorities. The whole basis of our police system rests on the fact that there is no one centrally controlled uniformed police in this country. There are local commissions which take into account matters of recruitment and the way in which police officers in various parts of the land are employed.
The employers were called in to discuss the salary awards. The Home Secretary is an employing party of part of the police force, and some time ago this controversial and difficult matter arose which the Bill is now sorting out. It can do no harm if I follow what was said by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) about the attitude of the local authorities, the official side, in this matter.
They took the view that the limitation imposed by the Statute, or by a recent interpretation of the Statute, on the capacity of a negotiating body to give a retrospective award, was well known to both sides. They therefore felt that as it was known to both sides it was taken account of by both sides, and they assumed from that that whatever


changes might be envisaged by Parliament in the future no change could be made which would affect this particular award.
I disagree with the local authorities in coming to that conclusion. It was always my hope that the local authorities would be ready to make whatever concessions might be called for from them to make a Bill of this sort possible. Nevertheless, they took the view, and so far as I know still take the view, that the award should not be brought within the compass of the Bill.
I want to make it clear that the local authorities are wholeheartedly and unitedly of the opinion that in all future salary negotiations for the police retrospective provisions should be introduced, as is the case with the employees of many other services. They also take the view that there is very often delay and difficulty in our procedure for dealing with a salary award of this kind by regulation, and that some of the delay might be avoided if we used machinery like the Whitley Council, with which the local authorities are very familiar in many other spheres. I do not think that they desire that the point should be unduly pressed but it is, nevertheless, in their minds.
The second important consideration that the Bill raises is that the police are, by the nature of their service, not in the same position as some other bodies or employees in that they cannot withdraw their services in desperation at the very last, when everything else fails. The power to do so is there, as it is everywhere else, but the police have no desire that it should ever be used and I do not think that it has ever entered into their calculations. Neither is it in their minds that they should always be able to use pressure upon Members of Parliament to secure an end that ordinary negotiation has failed to secure for them.
I was a little troubled to hear the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) suggest that in some ways it was a good thing that it had happened in this case because it gave a certain éclat to back bench Parliamentary activity that the police had been able to bring this final machine into operation when everything else had failed. In point of fact it was only when the attention of Parliament was

drawn, in the ordinary way, to a frustration of the law which everyone knew ought to be altered, and should have been altered some years ago, that the Government laid themselves open to representation from Members of both sides and that we have the Bill.
The Bill is necessary and good in its own right. It will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) said, add to the feeling among members of police forces that they enjoy their proper esteem in the country. That will add to the attractions of the service and be reflected in future recruiting. I very much hope so. I join in the congratulations to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary upon having introduced the Bill so early in the Session. I hope that it will have a very speedy passage through all its stages.

4.10 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: If what the Home Secretary said this afternoon, when moving the Second Reading of the Bill, is correct, I am at a loss to understand why it was necessary for so many police officers to make such strong representations to so many hon. Members.

Mr. Callaghan: We would not have got the Bill, otherwise.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I quite agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). I very much doubt whether this Bill would have been introduced at this time if it were not for the pressure which, in a sense unfortunately, had to be brought to bear through hon. Members on to the Home Secretary.
It was no use saying that our police are wonderful and then treating them less favourably than other sections of the civilian population. They are civilians and that gives them a respect and status which exceeds that of any other police force in the world. They voluntarily accept a higher degree of discipline and forgo privileges, which I need not mention, because they are members of a police force.
As was rightly pointed out in a communication I received from one of them:
One cannot help feeling that as the police are loyal, and do not talk of strikes, the Government are treating them in a very offhand


manner which would not be tolerated by any other body of employees who had made representations to their trade union.
That view was very prevalent throughout the police force, and that makes it all the more important that any kind of discrimination which places the police at a disadvantage compared with other organised workers should be avoided. Even more galling and aggravating was the fact that through a pure technicality the higher ranks of the police force had their pay back-dated to 8th September and the lower ranks could not be given the same concession.
I feel that the Home Secretary was badly advised and rather unreasonably obdurate until police officers all over the country took action and made it inevitable that the matter should be ventilated in this House. It should not be necessary for police officers to be compelled to engage in a nation-wide campaign and to lobby Members of Parliament to secure justice. Legislation was promised as long ago as 1953, and nothing was done about it. The Home Secretary, in his statement of 12th July, was less than candid when he said that he would consult the police authorities to see whether it was possible to make this pay retrospective.
That struck me as very curious because, in a communication sent to all hon. Members, dated 7th July, the Police Federation stated:
The local authorities have further said that they are willing to pay the new scales granted by the Arbitrators from 8th September, 1955, if the legal obstacles are removed.
Yet the Home Secretary said on 12th July that he was to consult the police authorities. When I asked a Question, on 2nd August, he was still consulting them. In the light of that fact, it does not seem that it was necessary to put forward consultation with the police authorities as a reason for delay in dealing with the matter.
This legislation could have been introduced last Session. However, it has been introduced now and I hope it will help in restoring the good faith and confidence which must exist between the police force, the Government of the day, and the general public. We all know that the efficient administration of law and order depends upon a contented police force whose members are satisfied that they are getting a square deal.
So far as it deals with the question of pay, this Bill gives them the square deal to which they have felt fully entitled for a considerable time. It is a case of "Better late than never." I wish to reiterate the suggestion I made on 25th October, to which I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) refer, that everything should be done to get the Bill through in time for the retrospective pay to be given to lower ranks before Christmas.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Reader Harris: Not for the first time in this House have we listened to the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Col. Lipton) talking of something he knows nothing about. We are quite used to him getting up, opening his mouth and putting his foot in it.
It is nonsense to talk about the police being discriminated against or treated unfairly. This position has arisen because the police are paid under Acts of Parliament. If they experience difficulties over retrospective pay compared with other classes of employees that is because other employees—such as building operatives—have national joint councils and their pay agreements can be implemented at once.
That implementation does not have to be laid down in regulations. It is nonsense to talk about discrimination and unfair treatment of the police because it is laid down in regulations that these increases cannot operate retrospectively. In practice, regulations are a great protection.
I have a position in relation to the Fire Service which is similar to the position of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in relation to the Police Federation. I have been the spokesman for fire brigade officers for a great many years, ever since the war. I have sat on the National Joint Council for local authority fire brigades ever since 1947, and on the body which preceded it during the lifetime of the National Fire Service.
The attitude of the Fire Service officers is that they like regulations and do not want them to be abolished. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will take notice of that. In the last


year or two there has been a movement in local authorities to dispense with regulations altogether. I wish to tell my hon. Friend that that does not suit the senior ranks of the Fire Service. I am not sure about the position of the firemen. They are organised by the Fire Brigades Union and, during the time that they had a Communist secretary, there was an unholy alliance over this matter. That may have changed. They may now have seen the light.
Regulations, however, have had a disadvantage—which, I should say is the only disadvantage—in that occasionally there has been a need for a pay rise to be made retrospective and that has not been possible because of the rule about retrospective effect. The attitude of the Fire Service to this Bill is, "About time, too," because we have had this trouble on a number of occasions in the last ten years. Particular difficulties have arisen when arbitration courts have given awards which they wanted to be made retrospective, but which could not be made retrospective because of the regulations. That difficulty will now be removed and the Fire Service is grateful for that.
When a recommendation goes to the Home Secretary or to the Secretary of State for Scotland they will always be left with the final decision. I merely express the hope that there will not be a feeling in the Home Office that because regulations can now be made retrospective there is no need for the Home Office to give urgent consideration to a recommendation from the National Joint Council.

Mr. Callaghan: It could not be any slower.

Mr. Harris: The hon. Member says that they cannot be any slower. I hope that it will not be considered out of place or too unkind to the Home Secretary if I say that things other than remuneration are concerned. Two or three years ago the Home Office considered some sick pay regulations for more than a year before deciding to make regulations on the subject.

Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member. On the last pay claim the Home Office acted extremely promptly in introducing regulations—within a couple of days. What does hold up regulations, and why I said that it could not

be slower, is that there are so many elements on the official side, all quarrelling among themselves about what should be offered, that it is difficult to get a clear answer from them.

Mr. Harris: That is quite true. Not only remuneration is affected. I see that in Clause 1 (1, c) there is a reference to Section 17 of the Fire Services Act, 1947, for regulating the remuneration of members of fire brigades. However, that Section regulates a great deal more than remuneration. It relates to conditions of service. In the Fire Service nearly all the conditions of service are laid down in regulations and, inevitably, some conditions of service cannot be made retrospective. For instance, it is very difficult to make sick pay regulations retrospective.
I hope that the Home Office—and I shall not be as unkind as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East—will give its usual prompt consideration to recommendations which come from joint committees of fire services. I also hope that the employers' side on the National Joint Council, that is to say, the Association of Municipal Corporations, the County Councils' Association, the London County Council and the Scottish local authority associations, will not now feel that, because retrospection can be given, there is no need for prompt consideration to be given to claims coming from the employees' side.
Finally, I want to ask the Home Secretary whether he is satisfied that the police, fire services and probation officers are the only people who will be affected and the only people to have their pay laid down in regulations. I think that teachers in Scotland also have their pay laid down in regulations. No doubt that is a matter which the Home Secretary can study. If there are other people, I hope that regulations to govern their conditions will be included in the Bill. I join with other hon. Members in wishing the Bill a speedy passage.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: No doubt the Home Secretary is feeling that he would prefer to have a little less congratulation and to get the Second Reading of the Bill, but I wish to detain the House for a few moments, not in any representative sense, or as a member of any negotiating body involved in these


discussions, to say how much I appreciate the fact that he has decided to include in the Bill provision affecting probation officers.
Those of us who know the work of the Probation Service have been very worried by two things. As the scope of the work increases, it becomes more and more difficult to maintain the qualifications of the people being recruited for the Service. It would have been deplorable had the Bill made these arrangements for the police and fire brigades, who are very powerfully and effectively advised, as we know, while the Probation Service had been omitted, because the Probation Service already suffers discrimination in salary grades in comparison with the police and certainly in comparison with some local authority welfare services, which to some extent draw upon the same kind of people for recruits.
The greater the flexibility in fixing remuneration and the back-dating of remuneration—as in the teaching service, for example—the greater the ease with which people can be recruited to the Probation Service—although that is not the only problem involved. I hope that the fact that the Home Secretary has included probation officers in the Bill is an indication that he is fully aware of the very great importance of the work they do, work which is in no way less important than that of the teachers or of the local authority welfare services. The probation officer is in a position of very great responsibility as a confidential adviser of the magistrates. His work is exacting and his hours long. It is most important that he should not feel that he is in any way regarded as not being a major part of the social services and a major part of the judicial services.
The fact that probation officers are included in the Bill, although it will not meet the whole of the difficulty—it is not pretended that it will—to some extent indicates the intentions of the Home Office. I hope—I put it no stronger than that—to see that in financial matters probation officers are treated as fairly as members of those other services with whom they are working in co-operation and with whom, to some extent; they have the same kind of training and the same kind of experience. I most warmly welcome the fact that they have been

included and I hope that the Bill will pass very quickly through all its stages and soon reach the Statute Book.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: Very briefly, I should like to add my thanks to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Home Secretary for introducing the Bill. Particularly worthy of commendation is the fact that we have it so early in the Session. It seems likely to be through the House this week. That is speed, indeed. My right hon. and gallant Friend referred to the unsatisfactory position which existed on this legal technicality, a technicality which had a great effect upon peoples' lives and happiness. We shall have done a good job today in helping to get rid of that technicality.
Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I was very pleased to see in the Home Secretary's announcement on 12th July that he was considering retrospection. Today, there has been a very happy conclusion to that announcement. I was very glad that my right hon. and gallant Friend referred to the fact that the Bill is affecting not only the principle of retrospection, but a specific example of retrospection in the pay award dating back to 8th September of last year. It will not only clear up that particular problem, but deal with any similar problem which may arise in the future.
My right hon. and gallant Friend said that this is a small Bill, but size is no indication of its worth and the beneficial effect to so many people. The three groups of people affected by the Bill, the police, fire services and probation officers, are all doing a job of work without which we could not happily exist. They are doing a job of work vital to our lives and to the country's order. As individual Members we can be pleased that we are doing something to assist the functions carried out by those services.
It has been rightly observed that the removal of the technicality about retrospection will be of great assistance to the negotiating machinery and will allow negotiation on pay to take place in a much freer atmosphere. The Bill confers regulation-making powers on my right hon. and gallant Friend. All hon. Members have expressed the hope that the Bill will go through the House


speedily and I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to see that the regulations are laid quickly so that the Bill is implemented in all respects by Christmas.
I end as I began, by thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for bringing the Bill forward so quickly. It is always pleasant to see a Bill receiving commendation from all sides of the House and I hope the Bill will have that beneficial effect on all those affected by it which we hope it will have.

4.30 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: Both an immediate grievance and a wider issue of principle are tackled in the Bill and I congratulate the Home Secretary not only in bringing forward a Bill which deals with the general principle of retrospection in wage awards, but on his promise to implement the Bill and to deal with this immediate grievance of the police.
I should like also to congratulate hon. Members of the House, many of whom played an active part in calling the attention of the Home Secretary to the sense of injustice under which the police had suffered. I refer particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) and also to hundreds of hon. Members, on both sides, who signed a Motion on this matter in the last Session.
I was impressed by the dignified and careful way in which policemen came to see me and stated their grievances. They have nothing for which to apologise in coming to see their Member of Parliament. Being in the police does not deprive them of the privileges of British citizens and anything that the police did in their campaign they were doing quite rightly as British citizens in calling the attention of their Members of Parliament to something which they thought to be wrong.
The whole House will welcome this delayed act of justice to the police forces. The urgent need for it arose from a specific injury which was done to the police by the law of the land this year. The police made a wage claim in July and an almost ridiculous counter offer was made by the official side. In November, it went to arbitration. In December, the arbitrators made an award. I would say, in passing, that the Home Secretary acted

speedily on the arbitration award and carried it out almost within a few hours. That award, however, could not be backdated to any time during the long period of negotiations, all because of a defect in the Police Act, 1919, which successive Governments had looked at and thought of putting right.
The moral case of the police was unanswerable. Certainly, everybody in this House, the arbitrators and, indeed, the official side, thought that the wage award should be back-dated. The arbitrators, be it remembered, had awarded the police double the amount which the official side had offered at the beginning of the negotiations. During the conversations, it seemed clear that the official side was wholeheartedly in favour of the general principle of back-dating, even if it had doubts as to whether the principle of back-dating could be applied to this particular wage award.
When we debated the matter in the House during the summer, the arbitrators' report was quoted—it has been mentioned again today. It said:
The Official Side expressed its sympathy, which we shared, towards some measure of retrospective operation being given to any increase in pay awarded.
If I understood the Home Secretary aright, the only difference between us is a matter of interpretation as to whether it was that particular award that was meant, or merely future awards.
The Bill, therefore, corrects a specific wrong. Incidentally, it gives us an opportunity of paying tribute to a great police force, a tribute not in words but in deeds. Let us remember that these policemen are deprived of some of the privileges of ordinary citizens. They are deprived by law of some of the basic freedoms of other workers, in that they are forbidden to join trade unions and they are not allowed to strike. The least we can do is to ensure that their hands are not unnecessarily tied by law when negotiating wage claims.
The Bill does the same for the Fire Service, a very efficient and loyal body of men. I am quite certain that the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris), who spoke on behalf of the fire officers, while he was probably having a bit of fun at the expense of the General Secretary of the Fire Brigades' Union—who, we are all glad to see, has freed himself from the Stalinest group in


this country; I think he will be the better trade unionist for it—agrees that the Fire Service is not only efficient, but very loyal.

Mr. Callaghan: I should like to say that I have acted throughout this matter in conjunction with Mr. John Horner, of the Fire Brigades' Union, who has known exactly what has been going on, but that until the Bill was on the stocks I did not hear a word from the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris).

Mr. R. Harris: Except that I put a Motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes, the hon. Member tabled a Motion.

Dr. King: I am glad that tribute has been paid to the probation officers, who are brought within the ambit of the Bill. It has been my privilege for twenty or thirty years to work intimately with the probation officers of Southampton in dealing with many problems of delinquents and their children and I want to pay tribute to the work that they do. I am glad that their position is being put right.
When the Bill becomes law, I think that there will be only one group of public servants who are statute-barred from ever having pay awards back-dated: that is, the teaching profession. I wish that the Bill had been drawn widely enough by the Government to apply this principle, which we all accept now as far as most State employees are concerned, to all public servants. I would express the hope that the Minister of Education will look at the Home Secretary's Bill and see whether he cannot discuss with those responsible—the local authorities, on the one hand, and the teaching profession, on the other hand, to see whether this anomaly may not be removed from the teaching profession, as this afternoon we are removing it from three other distinguished professions.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I shall detain the House for only one minute to associate myself with the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) about probation officers. Recorders and lay

magistrates do not always find themselves in agreement. Today they do, and all those who are associated with the work of the criminal courts readily recognise the wonderful work performed in the administration of justice by the Probation Service. It is a vital social service and a powerful force of reclamation.
It is quite true that the Bill will not render the Probation Service any immediate financial benefit, but I entirely agree with the observations of the Home Secretary that by helping to ensure the smooth working of negotiating machinery the Bill will, in the long run, benefit that section of the community, the probation officers, whose work we cannot commend too highly in this House.

4.37 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Henderson Stewart): It is a pleasure to be associated with the introduction of a Measure which is so universally welcomed throughout the House, and I should like to thank hon. Members, in all parts, for the generous reception they have given it. It obviously represents the general view of the House of Commons.
We hope that, so far as this House is concerned, the Bill will pass through all its stages and that, so far as the Government generally are concerned, sufficient progress will have been made to enable the back pay to be available by Christmas. Other bodies are, of course, involved, but for our part we shall do the best we possibly can.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: By Hogmanay in Scotland.

Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) spoke of the value of the Bill on the recruiting of policemen. I am sure he is right about that. I trust that it will have a good effect and that policemen generally will feel that we have done the right thing and that potential recruits will feel that the police is a service well worth joining.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), naturally, had to make his contribution to the debate, and I have no doubt that he feels a special measure of satisfaction that the Bill is now where it is. I should, however, say—and this is an answer also to his hon.
and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton)—that he would not be quite right to suggest, nor is it correct to leave unchallenged on the record, that unless there had been great pressure from the two hon. Members there would not have been this Bill. That simply is not true, as is proved by the facts.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, who made a very pleasant speech, as I hoped he would, was, I think, a little tough and quite unfair to the members of the Home Office and the Scottish Home Department. The hon. Member now has to deal with the Scottish Home Department as well as with the Home Office. It is certainly for me to say that these two Departments, here and in Scotland, are fully alive to their responsibilities for the police and these other services, and I do not think that any suggestion that the staffing arrangements are inadequate is justified.

Mr. Callaghan: May I give the Joint Under-Secretary one example of what I am complaining about? On 12th July, the Home Secretary made a statement which indicated that the Government were giving favourable consideration to what was being done. From that moment until 28th September last, a period of over two months, not a word passed from the Home Office—I am not complaining about the Scottish Home Department—to the Police Federation about the results of that discussion, how they were proceeding or what was happening. It is this lack of what I regard as thoughtful-ness in these matters that creates an atmosphere which is quite unnecessary and which could be removed with a little imagination and a little human understanding of what the other man may be thinking about.

Mr. Stewart: I am sure that the hon. Member knows very well the explanation for that period. My right hon. Friend's statement indicated that he and his colleagues had to think about this. It took some time to work this out, because it is not so easy as would perhaps appear. I think we have been speedy about this matter. If what the hon. Member means is that we might have sent out some interim statement or something like that, perhaps there is something to be said for

it. We note all these suggestions which he makes, and we are anxious to move along in harmony with the Police Federation and the other bodies with which we are concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) raised a point, which I think was also raised by one other hon. Member, as to whether it was wise to maintain the requirements that the pay and allowances of the members of these three services should be prescribed in regulations and rules. He suggested that perhaps the time has come to change that system. If it were changed, it would then be open to the authorities to act upon a recommendation of the negotiating body that an increase should operate from a specied date. I think that was rather what my hon. Friend meant. I suggest to him that that would not be a good thing to press at this time.
The purpose of this Bill is, by the speediest and simplest may possible, to enable members of these three services to enjoy the benefits of retrospection in suitable cases. I am sure that object would not be so easily obtained if an element of controversy were introduced. As one or two hon. Members have already said, any proposal to remove pay and allowances from the ambit of regulations would certainly give rise to acute differences of opinion. I think that the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) raised that point and that he is perfectly right about it.
The hon. Member for Heston and Iselworth paid tribute to the fire service, and I was glad that he did, and he spoke about the prompt consideration which had been given to this matter here. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and the hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) spoke properly about the value and importance of the probation officers. I am very glad that they did so, because these are services of the first order.

Mr. Callaghan: Can the Joint Under-Secretary give us any indication or confirmation that these officers who have subsequently retired but who were in post at the operative time will benefit?

Mr. Stewart: The answer is definitely yes. I was saying in winding-up that one trusts—I think that we all trust—that this


Measure, taken together with the arbitrators award to the police in December, 1955, will bring satisfaction to the members of these three services, will increase the good will that exists between them, the community and the Government and will stimulate recruiting all round. I feel sure that I speak for the whole House when I take this opportunity of paying an unqualified tribute to the magnificent work which the men and women of these three services perform to the nation.

Dr. King: The hon. Gentleman's attention has been called as Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland this afternoon to the fact that teacher's salaries are fixed by regulation in Scotland. Will he bear in mind that equal pay came to Scottish teachers three months after it came to English teachers, just because of the very principle we have been discussing? Will his Department go into that question?

Mr. Stewart: That is a matter for a Bill dealing with teachers. I should be out of order if I said anything about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Legh.]

Committee To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — POLICE, FIRE AND PROBATION OFFICERS REMUNERATION [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise retrospective provision to be made for the remuneration of members of police forces and fire brigades and

of probation officers, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any enactment;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any increase in the sums so payable under any enactment,

being in each case an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session enabling regulations or rules made by a Secretary of State under the relevant enactments with respect to the remuneration (including allowances) of such members or officers as aforesaid to be made with retrospective effect to any date not earlier than the eighth day of Septemebr, nineteen hundred and fifty-five.—[Major Lloyd-George.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Legh.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance of the Cotton Manufacturing Industry (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1934, and the Population (Statistics) Act, 1938, until the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven; and of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, and the Licensing Act, 1953, until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and fifty-eight, being expenses which under any Act are to be provided out of such moneys.—[Mr. H. Brooke]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

4.49 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. A. R. W. Low): I beg to move,
That this House approves the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in the 1956 tariff negotiations at Geneva as reported in Command Paper No. 9779.
This Motion enables us to discuss the outcome of the 1956 tariff negotiations held at Geneva. These negotiations were fourth in the line of multilateral tariff negotiations held under the aegis of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The earlier three were held in the time when right hon. Members opposite were in office, at Geneva in 1947, at Annecy in 1949 and at Torquay in 1951. The initials of these places form the first three letters of the G.A.T.T., and it was, I am told, a matter of regret to some people that the 1956 negotiations did not take place at a city beginning with the letter "T", such as Toronto, or Taormina in Sicily, which had been suggested.
We took part, along with twenty-one other countries, in the 1956 negotiations, because it is our policy to help our exporters by seeking mutual reductions of tariff barriers and by creating more stability in the level of tariffs they have to face in foreign countries. The inclusion of the rates of duty in the schedules to the General Agreement, which is one of the results of negotiations like this, as the House will see in paragraph 1 of the Appendix to the White Paper, has that stabilising effect.
We have no doubt that tariff negotiations held with these objects in view are better carried out on a multilateral basis than by a series of bilateral agreements. When we make a concession on our tariffs, the benefit goes to more than one country because of the most-favoured-nation rule, and so it is easier to take advantage of that benefit if negotiations are proceeding at the same time with the countries mainly concerned. Likewise, concessions made toy other countries in favour of third countries may have some benefit to us. In short, multilateral negotiations can cover a wider area of tariff concessions than bilateral negotiations, and they can take place more quickly with fewer men.
The immediate occasion for the 1956 negotiations was the passage through the United States Congress in the summer of last year of legislation empowering the United States administration to reduce Customs duties in three annual instalments. If we were to take full advantage of this, we should have to complete negotiations so that the first instalment could be effective on 1st July, 1956. That legislation of the United States provided that their Government could reduce to 50 per cent. any rate of duty which was greater than 50 per cent., and that in any other case they could reduce by 15 per cent. the rates in force on 1st January, 1955.
That necessarily set strict bounds to the general level of reduction in tariffs that these negotiations could bring about, but it did allow some important advances to be made and it gave hope of useful agreement between ourselves, the United States and other countries.
We had not been able to reach any agreement with the United States in the Torquay discussions in 1951, as the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) will remember. Indeed, since 1947 there had been no reductions in those of their import duties that mainly affected us. It is right, I am sure, to keep up the impetus of the move to lower trade barriers everywhere in the world, and we have always been anxious, as I think were right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to seize every opportunity offered to us of negotiating reductions in the United States tariff. All this explains why we joined in these negotiations and also why they were held early this year.
Before the negotiations could begin we, like the other countries taking part, had to decide what concessions we wanted from other countries. We drew up lists of these after consultation with industry, In some cases we asked for a reduction of duties; in other cases we asked for an undertaking not to increase the duty above the existing level. That is called "binding" a duty. It is a recognised principle in these negotiations that from the bargaining point of view an agreement to bind a low duty is equivalent to an agreement to reduce a high duty.
Then we had to decide what concessions on our tariff we would be prepared to offer in response to requests received in order to obtain the concessions which we wanted from others. We could not


expect to gain benefits if we did not pay for them. This required even closer and more thorough consultation with a number of our industries. All the trade associations concerned were written to, and if there was no trade association concerned, letters were sent to representative firms.
A large number of meetings were held—I think 100 meetings in all—attended in virtually every case by a member of our negotiating team. The object of our consultation was to ascertain the degree of risk involved in a small reduction in our tariff; I have myself studied the records of a great many of these meetings and I know the careful consideration that was given to advice received from industry. Industrial members of the Board of Trade Consultative Committee for Industry have expressed their appreciation of the way in which this consultation was carried out. The final list of concessions on which we decided, and to which the various Orders to be considered later give effect, embodies no reduction, so far as I am aware, that should do serious harm to any of our industries.
During the course of this consultation some industrial associations expressed their fear of dumping, but these fears and the danger of dumping, which of course I acknowledge, should not affect the general level of our tariff or, indeed, the concessions that we are discussing today. The way to deal with these years is through anti-dumping and countervailing duties, for powers to impose which we are about to ask the House.
Throughout the negotiations and the preparation for them, we were in constant touch with the Commonwealth Governments who might be affected by any concessions on our tariff. Several valuable concessions were, in fact, withheld because Governments of Commonwealth countries most concerned attached particular importance to our not granting them.
Negotiations started in January, 1956, and lasted in all nearly four months, and at the end we had made successful agreements with the United States, Western Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, the three Benelux countries and Italy.
In the outcome, as the White Paper explains, we gained benefits from tariff concessions covering in terms of 1954

trade about £104 million worth of our exports into the countries taking part in the negotiations with us. Of this, some £79 million represents items on which the duties now levied are to be reduced, and £25 million is represented by bindings. In return, we granted concessions on our tariff covering imports from the countries who negotiated with us to a value of about £94 million in terms of 1954 trade. Of this, £70 million represents a reduction of duties and £24 million represents bindings of existing duty-free entry or current rates of duty.
The House will see that paragraphs 10 to 12 of the White Paper refer to the effect on Commonwealth preference of these negotiations with various countries. The important points are these. First, there is no significant Colonial interest in items in which the United Kingdom tariff has been reduced. Second, for certain products which are not admitted free of duty here from Commonwealth sources—for example, motor cars and certain artificial silk products—the existing ratios of preference have been retained when the duties have been reduced. Third, and most important, no margin of preference enjoyed by the United Kingdom has been reduced below its contractual level and no margins of preference guaranteed by us under existing trade agreements with other Commonwealth countries have been affected by any reductions in our duties.
It may be said about these figures that a bare statistical comparison of concessions given and received is open to objection. I agree that that is so, but I do not think there is a better way of estimating the overall advantage or disadvantage of such negotiations. This statistical comparison which I have given is based upon the same principles as those applied in the comparisons made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the earlier Agreements.
Nevertheless, it would be wrong for me to shirk the shortcomings of the comparison, and the right hon. Gentleman never did. The pattern of trade, has, of course, changed since 1954, as has the relative importance of the goods concerned. Due weight is not given in the comparison to the extent of the reduction in individual duties, nor is account taken of the nature of the goods involved—for example, whether they be manufactured goods or raw materials. Taking these


factors into account, it could be argued that a greater balance of advantage may lie with the United Kingdom than the figures quoted in paragraphs 5 and 7 of the White Paper, and which I have quoted, would indicate. Though we have always stressed that the result of these negotiations could not, by reason of the United States legislation to which I have referred, be more than modest, I do. say that the results, from the point of view of our exporters, are not as meagre as some had expected that they would be.
Before I comment further on the gains I should remind the House, as is mentioned in the White Paper, that the concessions we have gained from the United States include compensation due from them in respect of the increases made by them in their duties on bicycles; increases which were introduced in August, 1955. They had undertaken not to increase these duties on bicycles and so had to pay us compensation by reductions elsewhere in their tariff.
There is one other thing I ought to say before I talk about the gains and benefits. Since we are dealing with the implementation of the negotiations, hon. Members should know that the Orders for reductions of duties, which are before the House, include some items not directly covered by the commitments made in the negotiations. They are included—indeed they have to be included—'because it is impossible for administrative reasons to give them in the tariff a different rate of duty from the items covered by the commitments entered into in fine negotiations.
In previous negotiations it had always been found necessary to include in the Orders implementing the commitments made in the negotiations items not covered by the commitments themselves, but reduction of whose duties was consequential on the commitments. I am satisfied that no negotiating advantage would have been secured by including these miscellaneous "fringe products"—if I may be allowed to call them so—in our offers to other countries; and it is quite clear that the problem is not of sufficient account to upset the balance of the negotiations.
Now I wish to say something about the gains. A fairly full summary of the gains to our exporters resulting directly from

the negotiations to which we were a party is given in paragraph 8 of the White Paper; and the House will see that many of our important exporting industries will gain from the reductions in duties, slight though a reduction of about 15 per cent. of the rate of the duty may seem to be. In the case of the United States, motor cars, aeroplanes and parts, most electric motors, certain manufactures of linen, some leather footwear, some wool clothing, china clay and whisky are among the United Kingdom products benefiting from the concessions; and the total amount of imports from the United Kingdom into the United States in terms of 1954 trade covered by these concessions was, as the White Paper says, about £59 million. That covers 39 per cent. of our exports to the United States in 1954 terms.
We also gained valuable concessions from Western Germany, including concessions on motor cars and other things, among them some textiles, and also from the Scandinavian countries, the Benelux countries and Italy. I will not repeat what the White Paper says about that. I do not think that we shall be found to have paid too dearly for these gains for our exporters.
I now turn to the concessions which we gave. I cannot, of course, attempt to cover this subject in detail. Indeed, the House would not like it if I did. I propose to pick out some of the important sections of our imports which are mentioned in paragraph 6 of the While Paper. If questions are asked on those or other points during our debate, I will, with the permission of the House, attempt to answer them at the end.
First, agricultural commodities. Ws had a number of requests for concessions on cereals, meat, cheese and eggs, but we refused them all except for two. We agreed to bind the duty-free entry of maize in grain except flat white and we agreed to bind the 10 per cent. rate on grain sorghums. The concession on maize was regarded as an important concession by some countries.
In horticultural products we refused about a dozen requests for concessions, but we agreed to two reductions of duty. The first one relates to horse-radish root unprepared, which is reduced from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent. The second is on Azalea Indica shrubs which comes down from 10 per cent. to duty free.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Where do we get some?

Mr. Low: Then we come to a more important field, that of machinery and tools. We agreed to make slight reductions over a wide range of machinery and tools. In the main, the reductions are from 20 per cent. to 17½ per cent. which is a reduction of 12½ per cent. on the rate of duty. There are some exceptions. Goods on which duties were not affected include, for example, ball bearings, knives and fully-fashioned hosiery machines. Very few reductions were agreed to on machinery bearing lower rates of duty than 20 per cent., but milking machinery and parts is an example of a reduction from 15 per cent. to 12½ per cent.
Now I come to motor vehicles. The agreed reduction on our duties on motors and motor vehicles is from 33⅓ per cent. to 30 per cent. and was an important concession in our negotiations with the United States and Germany; which negotiations resulted in reductions of the same order in their duties on motor cars. We also were able to get reductions in the Italian duties on agricultural tractors from 36 per cent. to 32 per cent. The preferential ratio enjoyed by Commonwealth motor vehicles has been retained; that is, they pay two-thirds of the most-favoured-nation rate of 20 per cent.
We agreed to make a number of reductions in the duties charged on imported paper, but not on board which remains mainly at 20 per cent. These concessions were made in our negotiations with the Scandinavian countries. Indeed, without them we should not have secured any agreement with those countries.
Then we come to silk and artificial silk duties which were originally revenue duties but have, of course, afforded substantial protection, and will continue to do so. These duties embody both specific and ad valorem charges. Their effect varies between type of product and price of product. Until the new Order took effect the maximum ad valorem incidence on yarns and tissues of silk or artificial silk was about 75 per cent. and the minimum about 23 per cent. The average incidence was 26 per cent. for yarn and 40 per cent. for tissues. The concessions we have given reduce the maximum incidence to about 70 per cent., from 75 per cent., but only lower the average

incidence very slightly. The reductions included in the Silk Duties No. 2 Order, 1956, cover raw silk, silk yarns and artificial silk yarns and artificial silk tissues but not silk tissues.
They also cover discharged silk waste, cocoons and noils. The two latter were not covered by commitments, but reductions were necessary in order to safeguard the interests of our silk-using trades. The Commonwealth preferential rate is at five-sixths of the most-favoured-nation rate, the same ratio as it has always been. The reductions will be found to be small, but our ability to make these reductions was critical in securing an agreement with Italy, and it was helpful in our agreement with Benelux.
There is before the House a Safeguarding of Industries Order which affects the Key Industry Duty. This Order includes a number of reductions from high, or relatively high, levels of duty to slightly lower levels. Examples are: still projectors from 50 per cent. to 42½ per cent.; a few precision gauges and measuring instruments from 33⅓ per cent. to 25 per cent., and most other precision gauges and measuring instruments from 30 per cent. to 25 per cent. The reduction in key industry duties is not a new thing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham negotiated reductions in 1947, and, indeed, took power under the Finance Act, 1948, to make reductions in the duties, following tariff negotiations, by Order. There was no power to act by Order before.
There are, of course, a number of other reductions which I have not mentioned, but I should like to mention two increases in duties which were previously bound, increases which we have been able to negotiate at the same time as the other negotiations. These increases are covered in the Additional Import Duties (No. 3) Order, and relate to fruit stocks of Mailing varieties and to Kentia palms.
The House may like to know what all those things are. The fruit stocks of Mailing varieties are descended from stocks which were approved, as to their horticultural qualities, by the Mailing Research Station in Kent. They consist almost entirely of fruit tree stocks-apples, pears, plums and cherries—and are used for budding or grafting with commercial varieties. They include little, if any, soft fruit.
The Kentia palm is the name applied collectively to four species of plants, namely, cocos weddelliana, howea belmoreana, howea forsteriana, and phoenix canariensis. The adult palm is a tree of considerable height, but, so far as is known, there is no trade in the adult palm. The import trade is in the juvenile plant, up to eight years old. A characteristic of this tree is that the growth of the trunk is delayed, so that, when young, it lacks a tree-like stem and bears some resemblance to an aspidistra. It is imported in pots of earth and is used solely for decorative purposes; for example, in palm courts in hotels. It is not usually found in private houses, for which it tends to grow too high.

Mr. John Rankin: Will the Minister of State tell us why the bramble is not included in the group which he has just read out? It is not exactly a soft fruit. He said that soft fruits were excluded, but the bramble does not come exactly within the category of soft fruits. Perhaps he could tell us why it has been left out.

Mr. Low: I will try to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity later on, but these things are very complicated—as he would know if he had to examine our tariffs. Perhaps I can say this. The Order is to make the new duty on these things £2 5s. per cwt. in each case, which is the rate applicable to trees, shrubs and bushes generally. I think that I had better find out if the item mentioned by the hon. Member is covered by the same rate or not.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Is the rate higher than before?

Mr. Low: The rate on the Kentia palms, yes. We were inhibited from introducing that rate because of the binding introduced by the right hon. Gentleman in the 1947 tariff negotiations.
The tariff reductions about which I have spoken earlier are implemented by the three Orders before the House. The three Orders are necessary because three groups of Acts are concerned; the Import Duties Act, 1932, the Finance Acts of 1925 and 1933 for the Silk Duties, and the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921. Two of the Orders require Affirmative Resolution, because they contain an increased maximum rate—as in the case of steel tubes—or adjustments in the duty

which may amount to an increase. For example, there are new alternative specific rates to which I have referred in the case of artificial silk dresses, and a revised structure of duties on handbags chargeable under the Import Duties Act, 1932.
The last point that I want to make is this. The commitments into which we are now entered will last as long as the General Agreement lasts. There are provisions in the G.A.T.T. for re-negotiation, but withdrawal of any of our concessions could be made only at the cost of offering compensating reductions of equivalent value. As I said at the beginning of my speech, it is our view that it is in the interests of the United Kingdom to seek the maximum amount of stability in the tariffs of other countries, and we would, therefore, hope to set an example not to make alterations in rates covered by negotiations, except in the most exceptional circumstances.
This greater element of stability in the tariffs of foreign countries is, we think, of real value to the exporters. That we have gained stability over a wider range of our trade, even though only a relatively small part of our exports, is a real advantage gained from these negotiations. In addition, as I have tried to show, in gaining that advantage and in gaining the further advantage of a reduction in tariff barriers, we have agreed to reductions in our rates of duty which, when compared with the benefits we have gained, represent a fair deal.
It is for those reasons that I commend the Motion to the House and it is against that background that I hope that, later today, the House will agree to those Orders which require an Affirmative Resolution.

Mr. Arthur Holt: Does not the Minister intend to offer any explanation of why there are these two or three increases in duty, in what way the public interest is involved, and why it is necessary to put up the duties?

Mr. Low: I am sorry—I had to cut short my speech otherwise it would have lasted all night. It has gone on long enough as it is. The increase in these; duties was decided upon after a very full inquiry. The House will remember that a number of horticultural items were the subject of inquiry, and increases in duty


about two years ago. The inquiry covered a wider range than the duties then raised, and these two matters were amongst them. It was found to be in the national interest that the duties should go up. We could not put them up then because of the binding, but we have now been able to do so.

Mr. H. R. Spence: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to tell the House whether these negotiations were concerned solely with percentage rates of duty, or whether, in the case of imports from America—where the control may also rest with a quota—the amount of imports was taken into consideration, as well as the rate of duty? I ask because that would have a very direct bearing on what he has been able to do.

Mr. Low: The negotiations were not concerned with quotas.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: It affords us some comfort on these benches that the Conservative Government have at last given support to something started by the Labour Government. Perhaps they have done it because they know that we cannot altogether claim credit for it. The original idea occurred during the wartime Coalition Government when, as we know, there was a conference at Bretton Woods in 1944 which sought to establish some stability in the world by creating an international monetary fund and an international bank for reconstruction and development—means whereby the countries which had been devastated by war could be placed on their feet again and given long-term loans. We also sought an international trade organisation with the object of the reduction and simplification of tariffs and other restrictions on imports.
As we know, that international trade organisation has not effectively come into being. The work which we hoped it would do is done by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Our discussion is to take place on Command Paper 9779, which is a report on the negotiations under that Agreement.
The document which gives all the details of the changes which have taken place extends to 450 pages. At one time

I was a little alarmed by the thought that the right hon. Gentleman intended to go through it for, as he said subsequently, had he attempted to do so we should have been here all night. I am quite sure that we do not want to enter into all those details, and it is certainly not my intention to do so at the moment, but I hope the Government will note that at some time we should like to debate a wider Motion in order that we may discuss what is happening as a result of the comprehensive review of G.A.T.T. which has been carried out.
I gather that the Motion put down today will not confine us narrowly to the details of this document which has been presented with the Command Paper, and I hope that with that acknowledgment it will be possible for me to widen the debate a little further than merely discussing whether the tariff on this or that article should have been increased or decreased by x amount or not.
It is estimated by authoritative people that as a result of the negotiations which have recently ended, United Kingdom trade to the value of £700 million will get some benefit either by lower or bound tariffs. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said—and I can well understand it, having taken part in earlier negotiations—there had been full consultation with industry generally. I am sure that, as on earlier occasions, the contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade exchanged their lists of products in which they were interested to receive tariff concessions and that these had been provided by their principal industries. I can imagine the bargaining which went on to make it possible to carry out these negotiations.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the first, second and third rounds of these negotiations were conducted during the period when a Labour Government were in office, and I had an opportunity of being closely associated with those developments. On this occasion, the fourth round, which has taken place during the period of this Government, was to take advantage of the powers given to the President of the United States under the renewed Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act. As we know, this Act permitted the reduction of any rate of duty which was in excess of 50 per cent. ad valorem down to that figure. On other rates the President was given power under this Act for


reductions to be made up to 5 per cent. of their January, 1955, level in each of the next three years. I think it was agreed that they would try to cover all the negotiations at this one time rather than spread them over the three years.
These deliberations took four months, and I am sure that nobody can say emphatically that the results have been a great achievement. More ought to have been done. The Tariff Negotiations Committee had been given extended powers, I gather. I am not sure what this means, but if, after having given it extended powers, this is all that has been achieved, I think it is a very poor effort.
Some of the authorities who have calculated what has been gained in this respect or what trade the changes affect, say that the negotiations will make hardly £5 million worth of difference to trade in any year for the United Kingdom. They consider the possibility of helping our export trade at about 3 per cent. at most. We are fiddling with the problem, and we have not tackled it as we might have hoped if it were to be a successful round of negotiations.
I do not deny that the United States carries the main responsibility for this. On this occasion the United States could negotiate only within the limits laid down by Congress, and I believe it is true that the negotiators did not feel able even to go to those limits. There may, of course, have been an association with elections which were going on, and certainly with the pressure of vested interests of manufacturers, not only in the United States but in all the countries—manufacturers who are against making tariff concessions of any kind, a feeling which we can perhaps understand. It is not only the United States which is responsible, although, as I have said, the United States has the main responsibility, for not allowing these tariff negotiations to be much more valuable than has been the case; the blame also applies to others—to manufacturers in this country and other countries who seek to get protection for their industries by high tariffs.
Clearly, if we are to remove obstacles to trade all nations must accept substantial limitations of their freedom to restrict the trade of others. All that we and the general public know is what has been published in the new tariff rates in the document which is laid before us. I had

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would tell us on what basis the tariff cuts were decided, and perhaps he will later seek an opportunity to do so. I have in mind the example of whisky. We can sell whisky and there is no need for a tariff reduction on it when we have to make a cut equal to this so-called concession. We need not count that as a great gain; it is a commodity which has a ready sale.
I was most gratified to hear the mastery with which the right hon. Gentleman was able to deal with those excellent plants—I will not try to emulate him by naming them—which come from the part of the world where my constituency is situated. But I should like to know why these things had to be brought into the negotiations at all. They are not of great value. I also noticed that tariff concessions were made on horse radish. I do not know who pressed that claim; I should not have thought that it had any great value.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us exactly how these negotiations were conducted in this country. Were they in agreement with industry? Did industry or particular interests in this country press upon the Government that action should be taken in these matters? Did the Government initiate them? Was there arbitrary action on the part of the Government? The general public and the House are not aware of the answers to these questions from the right hen. Gentleman's statement—except that he said there had been full consultation with trade associations and industry. Did tile Board of Trade themselves suggest that these ought to be matters for negotiation, and how and by what means were they put forward? I find it hard to believe that trade interests would have pursued some of the items to which I have referred.
As a result of what I said earlier, we have some idea of the annual general value of trade and the benefits to the export drive resulting from these tariff negotiations. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would give an indication of the effect which the new tariff rates will have on particular importing and exporting industries. We ought to be given some idea whether we shall have a great export drive as a result of these concessions or whether we shall have a flood of imports. I am sure that my right


hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) will be anxious to know what will be the result of the loss of tariffs on the Budget revenue. Perhaps later the right hon. Gentleman will develop this point and give us a satisfactory answer.
The results of the negotiations certainly are not satisfactory, although I do not deny what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that, as far as one can assess them, they are a fair bargain. We acknowledge, as obviously the Government do, too, that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade has been a contributor to increased world trade. Nobody would claim that it alone has contributed to that. There are O.E.E.C. and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and other agencies which have also helped, but since G.A.T.T. was formed in 1948 world trade has gone up by 40 per cent.

Mr. Ronald Russell: In volume or value?

Mr. Bottomley: In volume.
However, I think it would be fair to say that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, judging by this last round of negotiations, is beginning to lose its momentum. I may not now develop this thought, although I wish I could. A new organisation is being formed, and I imagine it is to take over the duties of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I imagine that the old interim Commission provided by the International Trade Organisation will now become the permanent administrator of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
Although we cannot debate today the Comprehensive review of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, I think we ought to know where we stand on policy. The President of the Board of Trade at the Ninth Session of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade said that the Government's policy was to strengthen and reaffirm the General Agreement. Nothing so bold has been said in this House about it.
As the result of a little research I have found that when hon. Members opposite were pursuing the President of the Board of Trade to learn what the attitude of the

Government was to be to G.A.T.T., the President replied:
The question of His Majesty's Government's attitude to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade as a whole is under consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1952; Vol. 495, c. 333.]
Some months afterwards, on 8th May, 1952, when there was again pressure from Conservative back benchers upon the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) joined in, and the reply by the President to my right hon. Friend was:
I have only been in office six months, and he and his hon. and right hon. Friends were in power for six years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th May. 1952; Vol. 500, c. 530.]
The Conservatives have been in office for more than five years now and still we have not had any firm declaration of their policy about G.A.T.T. It is not enough to produce a White Paper and say, "We are going to join the new organisation for trade co-operation." They should come clean and tell the House what is their considered policy.
We ought also to be told by the Government today what they are doing at the Eleventh Session of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade now being held. May be they have committed us completely. Perhaps we can be told something about that. What we do know is that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was negotiated in 1948, that it ran until January, 1951, and that it was possible for any country to give six months' notice that it would come out.
We have not done that, but from the last round of negotiations it appears that many countries are discontent. The low tariff countries who feel that their bargaining power has gone have been expressing disagreement, and, indeed, using very strong language on occasions. The primary producing nations such as Ceylon and Australia—indeed, the Commonwealth countries in particular—have been saying that the General Agreement gives advantages to the highly industrialised countries, not to the primary producing nations. I could go on giving other illustrations of how countries are becoming discontented. Brazil has proclaimed herself in favour of further multilateral trade but has no wish to weaken the General Agreement. I think we can all say that. However, what Brazil has said is that her existing tariff system is decades old and


no longer capable of safeguarding the legitimate interests of her economy.
When Brazil is saying that, and when at the same time other countries are raising grievances, I should have hoped that we would have asked the committee considering these matters to have given further thought to the question of Imperial Preference. Little has been said about Imperial Preference by the right hon. Gentleman today. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that the then President of the Board of Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton, is on record as saying that, although in order to get agreement within the group of nations bringing about the establishment of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and also to avoid destroying the Commonwealth free entry principle, agreement had to be reached on Imperial Preference, when ratification of the General Agreement came about we were free to review Imperial Preference.
At this conference, unfortunately, not all Commonwealth countries took part. I am not one of those who is as full blooded as some hon. Members opposite are in pursuit of an Imperial Preference policy, but I do say that we on this side of the House are keener on that than the Government. We are realists in our approach. I had to be because I was the one, unfortunately, who had to negotiate to bring about the Anglo-Pakistan Trade Agreement. I should really have said "fortunately" because of the pleasure of meeting many good friends. I said "unfortunately" because I was thinking of the tough bargaining there was to bring about the trade agreement. Most of the agreement was on the basis of Imperial Preference.
I recall that on that occasion the Pakistani Minister said to me, "We do not blame you. When you were the paramount Power it was for you to look after your interests, and what amazes us is that you were reasonably fair. You were not unduly selfish. However, you are now more selfish than you ought to be on the basis of an agreement between two independent parties." I remember how we got agreement in due course.
What is true of Pakistan is true of India, true of Ceylon. They accept Imperial Preference as long as it suits their interest. Then there is Australia. This is a tempting subject, but I see you

looking at me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and so I cannot bring in the Australian Trade Agreement. What we know of Australia is that Australia has a very good tariff fence apart from anything else. It is my belief that more often than not the calculation there is, "Let us put Imperial Preference high enough to keep out all other goods, and then let us put on a tariff a little higher than that."
It is a sad thing that the Imperial Preference system in Australia has been whittled away in the last few days, when it could beneficially have been used, in the arguments going on in recent months, to bring about advantages to both Australia and ourselves at the—

Mr. Low: On a point of order. If the right hon. Gentleman raises this matter I shall have to develop it rather fully in reply to him. It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is drawing rather a long way from the tariff negotiations held at Geneva. As he said, the Australian Trade Agreement is an interesting subject, but it is not anything like the same subject as the tariff negotiations at Geneva. The trade agreement with Australia was outside those negotiations.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I thought the right hon. Gentleman said he knew that, and he prefaced his remarks on the subject by saying that he saw me looking at him. I thought he was going to leave the matter in a moment. I hope he will now.

Mr. Bottomley: I was not going to say anything more upon the subject, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, beyond the final point to which I was leading up. I said I was not going to speak of the Australian agreement, but as a result of it there are preference reductions which, I was suggesting, ought to have taken place at the recent tariff negotiations, where we could have got some bargain for them, which now we have not got. I leave it at that. It is not necessary to say more. I was only leading up to that observation. The right hon. Gentleman jumped in prematurely. I think it shows how nervous he is about the Australian agreement.
Canada has been whittling away preferences. For these reasons I cannot share wholeheartedly the feelings of some hon. Members opposite, particularly of


the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell), but I think I have been able to show that on preferences generally we on this side of the House seem to take a stronger view than the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton safeguarded our position and the Government has not taken opportunity of this advantage. We, of course, take the even stronger view—that if we want Commonwealth trade developed properly it must be done by means of long-term trade agreements and bulk purchase in addition to preference.
It is not enough for Ministers to give the House the results of the deliberations over many months by very zealous and often over-worked officials. If we are to tackle this job and remove impediments to trade, it must be done by bolder methods. I had hoped that we might have seen the Government calling together all the Commonwealth countries, including those who did not take part in the latest round of tariff negotiations, to consider the possibility of presenting a united policy on preference for consideration by G.A.T.T.
I remember the Government presenting the House in 1952 with a wonderful scheme, during the sunshine period, when they said that industry, finance houses and commercial concerns were being organised and were going to develop the Commonwealth. We have heard nothing about that since then. It followed the Commonwealth economic Ministers' conference. Private enterprise has failed, and I hope that the Government will now consider calling together the economic Ministers to discuss tariffs and trades fully and effectively. As The Times has said,
The results of the four months tariff bargaining under G.A.T.T. announced yesterday were inevitably slight in substance.
The United States is a high-tariff country. It can be compelled to see that it must reduce those tariffs only by strong Commonwealth action. I am not turning against G.A.T.T. It is an essential and worthwhile organisation, but although the negotiators are to be complimented on very ticklish, delicate and prolonged negotiations, something bolder and sounder is wanted if we are to play our part in expanding world trade.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Russell: When documents like the one which we are now considering are brought before us—and this is about the fifth or sixth G.A.T.T. negotiation that we have considered since G.A.T.T. was formed—the considerations we have in mind are whether the results will damage our home industry in any way and our Imperial Preference system and what effect they will have on our export trade.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Board of Trade, made clear that we had consulted the home industries about the effect on them. Presumably, industry can look after itself, and I agreed with my right hon. Friend when he said that no significant concession had been made on Imperial Preference. I should like to ask a question about the concessions made on imports into the United States from two Colonies, Hong Kong and the Bahamas. I wonder what concessions have been given by those Colonies in return and how far imports, presumably from the United Kingdom and other Colonies, into these two Colonies will be affected. Presumably, we have had to give way on something in order that these two Colonies may get more imported into the United States.
My right hon. Friend said that maize was free-entry bound at the request of several countries. It is already bound by the double effect of the Import Duties Act and the Ottawa Agreement Acts. Therefore, all that we have been doing has been to put a second tie and lock on the door, and make it more difficult to unbind maize if in the future we bring forward some sort of policy for developing its production and that of other feeding-stuffs in the Commonwealth in order to save dollars and other currency.
Again, there is the mutual exchange on motor cars with certain countries, which my right hon. Friend mentioned in some detail. It does not seem to me to mean very much. We are giving away rather more than we receive, because our duties are higher than those of the United States. The White Paper on the subject does not make it clear. Paragraph 8 (a) and 8 (b) of Cmd. 9779 list the manufactures which benefit from a reduction of the United States tariffs in the first instance and German tariffs in the second. They do not make it clear that every


other country that exports the same manufactures also gain from these reductions. Although the duty on motor cars imported into the United States from this country may go down—and if the car is worth £600 it goes down £3 a year for the next three years from £60 to £51—the same applies to German, French, Belgian and other makes of cars, and we still have to compete with those other countries in that market. Again, this concession is not anything like as large as it would appear from the White Paper.
I appreciate that the entry of aeroplanes and parts depends upon quality entirely, and we have been able to sell Viscounts and their parts against any competition. But we would not be able to sell types like Constellation and Stratocruiser parts in that market. Therefore, the concession is quite meaningless. Again, there is the reduction in duties on paper, which largely benefits Scandinavia. Sweden is probably the chief beneficiary. I hope that in return Sweden will take more of our exports, because she is one of the countries with which we have an unfavourable balance of trade. We imported nearly £105 millions worth of goods from Sweden and sold only £77 millions of exports to her in return in the first nine months of 1956. That is an unfavourable situation. I hope that we shall see an improvement as a result of the concession in the case of paper which we have made to that country.
It is difficult to judge what will be the effect of these negotiations. My right hon. Friend takes as his yardstick the value of the trade that will benefit from them, but now we should be considering what has been the benefit, if any, to our trade, and to our Commonwealth trade in particular, from previous negotiations under G.A.T.T., starting from the beginning. We should consider whether we are better or worse off as a result.
I have gone into the problem very carefully. The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) said that there had been a gain of 40 per cent. in volume of world trade as a result of G.A.T.T. coming into being, but the Commonwealth proportion of world trade has not increased. It has gone down, and that is why I bring into question the whole of this G.A.T.T. policy. For example, whereas in 1950 the Commonwealth proportion of world exports was 32·1 per cent., in 1955 it had gone down

to 27 per cent. There has not been quite such a fall in imports. The corresponding figures are 31·3 per cent. for 1950 and 30·8 per cent. for 1955.
The greatest drop has been brought about in exports from the United Kingdom and from the Colonies. I do not want to weary the House with a large number of figures, but whereas in 1950 our proportion of world exports was 11 per cent., in 1955 it was 9·9 per cent., and in the case of the Colonial Territories it was 6·8 per cent. and it is now 4·6 per cent.
Again, our share of imports into certain Commonwealth countries has gone down. That is worrying, and I cannot but make the point that it was as a result of whittling down to a certain extent the Imperial Preference system. For instance, in 1950 Australia took nearly 52 per cent. of her imports from this country. Last year she took only 44 per cent. On the other hand, the United States' share, small though it was, was 8·2 per cent. in 1950 and has gone up to 11·9 per cent. The same has happened in the case of New Zealand, of Canada and of South Africa. In each case our proportion has gone down, whereas the United States' proportion has gone up.
Perhaps even more striking is the United Kingdom share of the world export of world manufactures. That has gone down from 25·5 per cent. in 1950 to 19·8 per cent. in 1955. Whereas the volume of United Kingdom imports over the six years from 1950 to the first half of 1956 has gone up by 27 per cent., the volume of our exports has gone up by only 14 per cent. and our imports of manufactures have gone up by no less than 57 per cent. I should have thought it was against all sound commercial policy that we should have increased our imports of manufactures, whereas our imports of basic materials have gone up by only 6 per cent. and our exports of manufactures by only 11 per cent.
There is something wrong when that has been the result of our participation in the General Agreement over nearly nine years and of the series of tariff negotiations which have taken place in the intervening period. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the General Agreement may have brought about an increase in the volume of world trade, but it has


not brought us our due share of that world trade, either as the United Kingdom alone or as the Commonwealth as a whole, in either imports or exports. So there is something wrong.
In the Gracious Speech there appears a phrase at the foot of the first page which I was glad to see. It refers to the Government's intention to foster the Imperial Preference system.

Mr. Bottomley: It is true that of recent years we have not been gaining the same proportion of trade that has developed, but that is because of the failure of Government policies. If the previous policies had been carried on, the trade would have developed just as rapidly as it did earlier.

Mr. Russell: By that intervention I take it that the right hon. Gentleman means that it has happened because we have abandoned the system of bulk purchase and, to a certain extent, long-term trade agreements?

Mr. Bottomley: indicated assent.

Mr. Russell: We have, of course, made other long-term trade agreements in respect of citrus and bananas since the party of the right hon. Gentleman was in power. My point is that we should be able to use the tariff weapon. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I believe in the system of tariffs and Imperial Preference to regulate trade, rather than the clumsy system of bulk purchase. I appreciate that there is a lot to be said for long-term trade agreements, but those are not the same as bulk purchase. So I was glad to see in the Gracious Speech the phrase about fostering the traditional system of Imperial Preference.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It has been in every one.

Mr. Russell: The word "foster" has not been in every one. It means feeding or nurturing or supporting or causing to grow, according to the dictionary. If it means helping to grow, I welcome it heartily. I hope that the Government intend to foster Imperial Preference to that extent because, as I have tried to show in the figures I have quoted, what is wrong with our trade position is that we have departed from the system of giving, first, priority in the home market

to our home production and, secondly, to the commodities of the Commonwealth.
It is because I hope that the words in the Gracious Speech mean that we shall do something about this, that I welcome what has been said this afternoon. I hope that the agreement will promote the development of Commonwealth and United Kingdom trade instead of the decline which those figures reveal has taken place during the last six years.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I am surprised at the attitude of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) over the percentage of United Kingdom and Commonwealth trade. The hon. Gentleman said that we were not getting a sufficient percentage of world trade, and seemed to have the idea that by the imposition of tariffs, and by other manipulation, we could assure ourselves of an increasing percentage. I have never believed that. I have always taken the view that if any individual wants to increase his business he must do something about it by working harder. The fact is that we have adopted a tariff system after years of free trade. We had the Ottawa Agreement. Tariffs were put on to increase trade and we negotiated from time to time in an effort to equalise them, so that we have liberalised trade to some extent. But if all countries negotiated successfully over all the commodities entering international trade, including for instance, horse-radish, the final result would be all countries trading in all commodities on an equal basis, and the world would then be back to free trade through tariffs.
Neither Britain nor the Commonwealth has any right to imagine that it is entitled, by some natural law, to enjoy a certain percentage of world trade. We can impose tariffs but, if we do not supply commodities of the type and quality desired, in spite of all the tariffs and manipulations, we shall fail.
We are all aware that some time ago, the Americans put a higher tariff on bicycles. British exports of bicycles to the United States were at a high level because of their popularity there. We negotiated with the Americans and obtained a concession from them. What was the concession? The concession was


given for whisky which is the best selling product in the United States. Indeed, many of my friends in Scotland take the view that whisky is dear here because the Americans buy it so fast. Yet the increased tariff on bicycles hits the Midlands and it hits Nottingham. If at the same time as the tariff on whisky is reduced, the price charged by the exporter from this country goes up in the same proportion, there might be something in it, but I do not think that is the case. However, I do not know what is the price of whisky in the United States or, indeed, here, because I never buy it.
Then there is china clay. It is common knowledge that on the American market British china clay is a best seller for its quality. It is no concession to have a lower tariff on china clay to balance the increased tariff on bicycles, because the clay will sell in America whatever tariff is put on it, whereas the tariff on bicycles really hits us. Then there is wool clothing. All the best people in the United States are now wearing tartans woven in Scotland. The Scottish weaving industry is burdened with orders from America for Scottish wool cloth. It is no concession in that instance. The same applies to footwear and to Irish linen.
We are accepting a concession in the form of a reduction in tariff products which sell easily because of their quality, and yet the Americans hit us with a tariff on our bicycles, in which there is a tremendous trade with the United States. We talk about concessons and about negotiating, and then the right hon. Gentleman introduces the subject of horse-radish. When he negotiated about horse-radish, did he consult the horseradish users' association? Will he tell us whether the tariff on horse-radish has any effect upon the mustard or chutney industries?
Then there is the tariff upon guaranteed Mailing certified root stock. I understand that this tariff has risen. It is a tragedy. The fruit growing industry of Great Britain is a very important one and it was making progress. All our best fruits are grown on grafted stock. Yet we are now to have an increased tariff upon the Mailing stock which is certified by the agricultural station at West Mailing, Kent, as being free from virus diseases.
I forget whether the tariff on horseradish was increased or decreased.

Mr. Low: It was decreased.

Mr. Bence: The concession was on horse-radish in the root only; that is, only if we import it in root form. I presume that if it is made up into horse-radish sauce the duty remains on it. I take it that the reduction in duty when it is in root form is to encourage the horse-radish shredding and manufacturing industry' in this country. I do not know where it is located. I believe that the firm of Coopers of Oxford is a big manufacturer of horseradish sauce, and I think I have had some of its horse-radish sauce in the Dining Room. It is very nice with beef. Maybe the National Farmers' Union had made an appeal to the Government to encourage the consumption of home-killed beef, and so the Government reduced the duty on horse-radish because horse-radish is the traditional sauce to go with beef. Perhaps it was thought that that might help our beef industry and our farmers and might also help the Government to reduce the subsidy on fat cattle. All these things may be interrelated.
Then we have the aspidistra. This is the first time that I have realised that that peculiar plant is a commodity which is an instrument of serious negotiation in the trade of the world. I am sure that the old ladies of the Victorian age would have glowed with pride to know that they had in their windows a plant which was an important negotiable instrument in international trade.
There is also the subject of machine tools. The Government ought to negotiate for the complete abolition of duty on machine tools. There is need for high capital investment, and machine tools cost a great deal of money even without duty, and the development of British industry must go on much faster than at present. We use financial techniques to give concessions to industry in respect of investment, encouraging industry to reinvest, and yet at the same time we place a tariff on the importation of articles which are absolutely essential to those using engineering equipment.
When I visited a machine tool exhibition in this country, I saw many British, Continental and American machine tools together, and I found that many of them were complementary. Many machine tool manufacturers in Britain, United States, Italy and Sweden are not manufacturing competitive machine tools. On stand


after stand one found that multiple machine tools made, say, in this country incorporated other machine tools made in Italy, Sweden, France, Switzerland or the United States. The situation is that machine tool manufacturers in this country have certain plant turning out a first-class product and they do not bother to manufacture another part already manufactured abroad which can be integrated with their product. The situation is that we have a tariff on so-called machine tools when very often, sometimes by agreement, the products of manufacturers in various countries are complementary to each other. This applies to such firms as William Asquith Limited and Craven Brothers (Manchester) Limited.
The machine tool industry is of great importance to us. There is a great need for new design and new technology. Machine tools are not mass-produced products, except for the small ones; they are, in the main, specialised products, and they are becoming increasingly specialised. Machine tools should be completely removed from the field of tariffs.
At the exhibition I saw a machine tool which sold at £800 before the war and now costs £6,000. Another machine, a terrific one, was ahead of it in design. It had an electronic computer and controller and it could be worked by a girl pressing a button. It did in four hours work which the other machine, by manual manipulation, took fifteen hours to do. This machine cost £22,000. One machine costing £22,000 was sold for export, and six of the old-fashioned machines were sold on the home market. The credit squeeze had some influence upon that.
If countries are to impose tariffs on items like these, it means that the amount required for investment in engineering industries will be driven higher and higher, and that in itself is seriously inflationary. The Government ought to try to get the nations of the world to take out of the tariff system all the basic commodities, including machine tools and other items which enter into the general economic and productive processes of the world.
I hope the Government will use all their power and influence to this end. I have no doubt that in terms of trade the Government still have a good deal of influence left. Other issues may have

weakened our position, although I hope not. I am sure the whole House hopes that our influence in the world, if it is not quite what it used to be not long ago, will in the near future recover and that we shall be in a position to give some lead. I hope we shall give a lead in breaking away from the tariff system, which is defeating the objective of scientists and engineers.
Scientists, engineers and agriculturists are trying to produce the most efficient and economical commodities in the geographical locations or environments where production is most economical. Yet financiers and politicians are trying to devise a system whereby they can override the principle of the division of labour and resources, for strategic and other reasons which the hydrogen bomb has made out-of-date, rather than ensuring that various parts of the world produce most efficiently the things which can be produced in those areas.
I know that hon. Members opposite and even some of my hon. Friends may say that this is old-fashioned Liberalism, but really it is not; it is what every business man does. Every industry, every factory and every production engineer does it. It is surely natural. Every farmer does it on his 300 acre farm. He does not try to grow turnips where they will not grow. A system of tariffs does not do what bulk buying does. Bulk buying gives a long-term contract to a nation which is in a physical position to satisfy that contract, and so gives it security, but when we start using tariffs we do not achieve the same objective.
The same thing applies in industry. If we want to get a safe supply from a manufacturer of a small commodity which enters into our industry we give him a long-term contract. We have done this in the motor industry. We get a small manufacturer of studs or badges and give him a five-year contract to produce them at Is. a gross, or whatever it may be. If Britain needs 3,000 quarters of beef or 5 million bushels of wheat per month it is good business for her to go to the people who can produce these commodities economically and give them a long-term contract to provide them. That is far better than fiddling about with Imperial Preferences or tariffs. It is far better to give a man a long-term contract to supply a certain unit of production.
I suppose that this fiddling about with tariffs will go on for many years, but I am convinced that many of us will see this policy so worked out that we shall almost reach a position of a free trade system, with tariffs imposed on all commodities. I hope that when the next Agreement is brought before the House horse-radish and aspidistras will not be factors in international trade.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. H. R. Spence: It seemed to me that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) was accusing the Minister of increasing tariffs on our imported goods and applying even higher tariffs against our exports, but the record of this White Paper is one of diminishing tariffs, and that is the whole object of the exercise.

Mr. Bence: The hon. Member must get my argument right. What I am complaining about is that other countries are raising tariffs on commodities in regard to which there is some competition in the export market and giving concessions by a lowering of tariffs on commodities where there is little competition.

Mr. Spence: It is always easy to argue a particular case but, knowing a great deal about this trade, I congratulate the Minister on having brought down the general level of tariffs. That can only result in good to trade over the whole range of our productive work.
In a sense it is a foreshadowing of what we have been talking about recently—a free trade bloc in Europe. This is a first step towards it. I know that in the list of countries on page 1 of the White Paper several countries outside Europe are included, and they do not come within the scope of our considerations when we have to deal with this problem of a European free trade market. For that reason I think that this is an encouraging step in the right direction.
I now turn for a moment to the question which I asked the Minister, namely, whether quotas were considered at the same time as tariff levels and percentages were arranged. That is a very cogent point, because in the case of our importations from hard currency countries some very rigid limits are laid down by the Treasury as to the permissible amount of goods which may be

imported, particularly in the case of consumer goods, in respect of which dollars are very sparingly handed out by the Treasury.
I was particularly pleased to see from the White Paper that the Minister has been able to obtain a reduction in the tariff levied upon our importation of whisky into America. That is an enormous trade for us; it amounts to about £26 million a year. I know that a few months ago a very strong effort was made in the Senate to draw attention to this free and large importation of Scottish whisky which was going on while, at the same time, there was a very rigid restriction on the importation of American whisky into Britain. I believe that position remains today.

Mr. Low: I must correct my hon. Friend. Whisky is now on open general licence.

Mr. Spence: I offer my thanks to the Minister, and I would say how grateful I am to him for that additional piece of information.
I now return to the general principle which I have been trying to make, that the question of quotas should be brought in. I hope the Minister will consider this because it would help him in negotiating with our customers overseas if he could indicate increases not only of preference in tariffs but also in the quantity of their goods that we can take. I suggest that in future he might consider the quotas on foreign produce at the same time as the tariff level. I am sure that the House welcomes this Report, and I hope that it will approve it.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: My right hon. Friend asked a number of questions, to which I want to add a few of my own. I am sure that the Minister will seize this opportunity to restore the good and traditional practice of this House that Ministers do answer the questions put to them—a practice that has been sadly tarnished by the Lord Privy Seal and the Chancellor in the last few days.
I want to look at the figures in this White Paper. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence) said that this was an encouraging step towards the freeing of trade and the opening up


of avenues for our exports, but it is really a very small mouse after the mountainous labours which have gone on. If we take into account the salaries paid to all the high-powered people who have negotiated for so long, and measure against that the actual achievements, we see that they are really very unimportant.
All this stuff about aspidistras and horse-radish—I do not know whether it is really worth going through all this to achieve so very little. When one looks at these figures in the White Paper and the Orders one feels no doubt that the impetus behind G.A.T.T. is dying, and we must face it. As my right hon. Friend said, low tariff countries are now beginning to find that they have no bargaining power at all—only high tariff countries have any bargaining power—and they are losing interest, because they cannot get anything out of these talks. Even more serious is the position of the primary producing countries, who find that G.A.T.T. is really a club for the industrial countries, which is certainly increasing the trade between them but is not really contributing in any important degree to encouraging trade between industrial and non-industrial countries. The last annual I.T.O. Report makes that point very clearly, with some very striking figures.
We now have to face the rather alarming fact that countries like Ceylon are openly attacking G.A.T.T. and saying that it is of no use to them and that they will soon have to consider going over to bilateral arrangements instead. Australia, another primary producing country, has said much the same thing. I would ask the Minister whether the Australian Trade Agreement will have any effect upon the various figures set out in the White Paper and the Orders. I take it that it will not.
The real trouble about the position is that although the United States launched G.A.T.T.—it was said to be a most wonderful thing, that was going to create complete free trade all over the world—she did not follow it up. There cannot be any success for G.A.T.T. unless America becomes a real free trading country. All these figures are, in fact, determined by the decision of the United States to make no more than a 15 per cent. reduction in its tariffs spread over

three years. That is what has determined the pattern of the figures laid before us today and they represent an extremely small amount.
The White Paper is really very misleading on this. This way of talking about the amount of trade covered by the concessions, and about it reaching enormous figures, is really totally misleading. It gives not the slightest idea of the actual impact. Indeed, in some cases nothing has happened at all. All that has happened is that tariffs have been bound, so that there is to be no effect on this great field of trade.
My right hon. Friend quoted from the Financial Times, which worked out that the concessions in this can scarcely make £5 million worth of difference to British trade in a year. Is that an accurate figure? Would the right hon. Gentleman question that that figure represents the actual impact on our trade—about £5 million a year? That is really what we want to know when we are judging what is happening. It is no good saying that tariffs have been bound for £100 million of trade. What we want to know is what difference it will make to our trade, and how much of it is in dollars.
As regards dollars, db we gain on balance? As far as the Minister can calculate, are we to gain more dollars even in these very small sums with which we are dealing here? If he could tell us, it would be interesting to know what we actually get out of the United States in exchange for its breach of promise over bicycles. The Minister has just said that it was put into the general account on both sides. What is the difference here between what we should have got if the Americans had not broken their word on bicycles? This tariff on bicycles has hurt our industry very gravely. In my constituency and in many others the bicycle industry has been gravely hurt. What have we got to make up for that sudden change of American policy?
I take it that because America has said that she cannot reduce tariffs by more than 15 per cent., spread over three years, we shall not have another of these glorious get-togethers of G.A.T.T. for three years. I imagine that we shall be likely to meet till 1958 When we may produce another £5 million worth of difference, in which case G.A.T.T. is


losing its impetus and the dream which I and many others shared of a really mutually advantageous advance towards a multilateral trading world has, after a certain amount of progress in that direction, come to an end. That is the lesson of this White Paper.
That being so, we really must find some new impetus towards enlarging world trade. Ceylon and other countries who are worried about G.A.T.T. have said that we must really re-approach the problem of international agreements, and I must say that they would be of immense aid to the sterling area and to countervailing somewhat the American price support programmes which are a very distorting factor in world economy.
I now come to the point made by the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell). Although I did not go all the way in agreement with his speech, none the less I thought that it was a very important point. He gave us facts and figures to show that Commonwealth trade has been rather immobile during this period, although Western European trade is going up fairly fast. Of course, nothing in this is going to help Commonwealth trade at all. I must say to the hon. Member for Wembley, South that I do not believe that Commonwealth preferences will either. They cannot be increased under G.A.T.T. and, therefore, cannot be used as instruments for stimulating Commonwealth trade. That being so, we must do things he does not like. Of course, Commonwealth preferences are of some value, but I do not agree that they are as valuable as he thinks they are.
I am sure that we must have long-term and bulk purchase agreements. I do not doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will tell me that Article 17 of G.A.T.T. prohibits that. But we have somehow managed to get the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement through, and, if we can do that, I do not doubt that Her Majesty's present Government, or the next Labour Government, will contrive ways of getting these Commonwealth long-term agreements. I see no other way of stimulating the growth of intra-Commonwealth trade which is stagnating in an alarming way.
Because of the present Government's attitude towards this, the simple fact is that the only country in the world which is offering long-term agreements to the primary producing countries is Russia.
She is doing so because we have left a vacuum which is having a considerable effect on countries like Ceylon and others. The Russians are prepared to offer long-term agreements. They do not trade very honestly, they chop and change, but they offer these agreements which are proving very attractive to people in the primary producing countries who cannot get rid of their products.
On balance, we support the White Paper for what it is worth. We do not think that it is worth very much. It is good that multilateral trading should be mutually introduced. What has been achieved in the past by G.A.T.T. is, I think, to be defended, and certainly the point made by the right hon. Gentleman in his opening about stability in foreign tariffs is, of course, a great advantage to our exporters. But if the Government rest on their great achievement, this aspidistra-horseradish achievement, as their main contribution, or, indeed, if they fail to do anything to increase world trade, then they will be very gravely neglecting their duty to develop British trade.
The right hon. Gentleman may not be in order in replying to some of these last questions I have put to him about other means of enlarging world and British trade, but on that head I want to say that it really is time that we had a proper debate in which we could develop our various ideas without being inhibited by the narrow rules of order—a real debate about G.A.T.T. and Commonwealth preference. We have not had such a debate for a long time and I hope that the Government will be able to give us time for such a real debate which, I think, would be very valuable and to which hon. Members of both sides of the House would make some very important contributions.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Low: I will, if I may, try to answer the many questions that have been put to me in the course of this short debate.
I should, first, like to thank right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House for the general support they have given to the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) seemed to think that there was some doubt about the Government's position towards the General


Agreement as a whole. There really is no doubt, if the right hon. Gentleman will think back, and it really is not correct to charge us with not having made our position quite clear.
Not only are we asking for support for these negotiations, the value of which I have stressed, but we did, at the time of the conclusion of the revision session of G.A.T.T., issue a statement of policy in the form of Cmd. 9449. In that White Paper, we made our attitude quite clear, and in answering Questions in the House both my right hon. Friend and I have made our attitude plain. I think the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten some of his "prep." for this debate, if I may say so.

Mr. Bottomley: I should not like to be unfair to the right hon. Gentleman. Of course, I am aware of that and I acknowledge it immediately. The point I was making is that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is losing its momentum. The Government are aware of that, and I said that we ought to have a debate in the House so that the Government might state clearly, as they have promised to do, their position as regards the G.A.T.T. and commercial policy generally.

Mr. Low: I quite understand that, and I will try to be not so controversial during the rest of my reply.
The right hon. Gentleman then made the point that in four months our negotiators ought to have been able to do more. He paid tribute to the work of the negotiators, and I join with him in that. He is right, of course, in saying that to a certain extent the result of these negotiations is a "mouse." Nobody has ever suggested that there would be really substantial gains from these negotiations. We made that clear right from the outset, even before they started. The reason for that was United States legislation rather than anything else. To take up one of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), it is right that we could not expect more negotiations with the United States until the end of this three-year period, unless, of course, American policy changed in the meantime.
To say that we ought to have been able to do more is going further than I can go. Surely the right hon. Gentle-

would not argue that we ought to have done more unilaterally. The advantage of this method of tariff negotiations is that we can use our tariffs to bargain down other people's tariffs to help our exporters. What I think we can say, as I have claimed in my speech, is that there is an advantage in extending the area of stability of tariffs, and there is an advantage, too, in keeping up the impetus. The impetus has been kept up in moving towards lower barriers throughout the world.
The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham mentioned Commonwealth Preference. I really think that he was a little unfair in saying that I did not cover that subject in my speech. The White Paper makes the position quite clear, and I should like to repeat that no guaranteed margins of preference on either side, either here or in the Commonwealth, were disturbed by these negotiations. He tried, rather cleverly, to bring in the question of the Australian Trade Agreement. I must take up this one point, if I may, Mr. Speaker, because he conveyed the imputation that I was nervous about having to argue the merits of this Agreement. I will willingly defend this Agreement at the proper time as a good Agreement in the circumstances now prevailing, and I shall not be ashamed to do so. I will stand up and argue the case with right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Tonight, however, is not the proper time to do it.
As to the argument that we ought to have negotiated reduced margins of preference at Geneva, that is going a little too far. To say that we ought to have gone to Geneva and asked the Australians to reduce their margins of preference, which are now in our favour, before they had ever indicated that they wanted those margins of preference down, is really to ask us to do something which I do not think the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham will, on reflection, consider would be very sensible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) asked me about the Colonies, and his first question related to the last paragraph in the White Paper; perhaps I might give an answer to that in a moment. He complained about the binding of the duty on maize; but he rightly said that, to a certain extent, our freedom to move that duty is


already fixed by other international obligations. I do not see why he complains because we were able to take advantage of what amounts to putting a second lock on that door. When he makes the point that the concessions we made are "most favoured nation" concessions and, therefore, they apply everywhere, I would ask him not to underestimate the effect of keeping up the move to reduce duties.
His main point was the point which he and one or two of his hon. Friends make from time to time against the G.A.T.T. in favour of Imperial Preference. He argued that, since these tariff negotiations began under the G.A.T.T. and since the operation of the G.A.T.T., we had lost. He was basing his argument, I think, rather on a post hoc analysis of the situation than on a propter hoc analysis of the situation. He prefers a system in which we would have not fewer preferences or lower preferences or even stable preferences, but higher preferences. That, unfortunately, is not the view of the Commonwealth. We know that even in these recent negotiations with Australia it was not we who were pressing for the Australians to reduce their preferences but it was they. I think that we have to face the facts in these days.
Our position is that we wish to maintain the system. We are maintaining the system, and, indeed, the recent Agreement with Australia does maintain the preferential system over the whole of our trade previously covered by preferences. Otherwise, we maintain that it is in our interest to seek and extend a system of wider trade and payments throughout the world.
My hon. Friend questioned the wisdom of a system which had appeared to result in a greater increase in our imports than in our exports. He will, I am sure, recall that quantitative restrictions have been removed; and that is a thing which, I think, we all regard as a wise action so long as we can afford it. This is bound to have some effect on the level of our imports. Let us not fall into the mistake of belittling the increase in our exports, which has been quite considerable over years of increasing competitiveness in the world.
Hon. Members on both sides have referred to world trade, our share of which, it is true, has fallen since 1950.
Our share of this trade depends most of all upon our relative competitiveness with other nations. Taking the figures in 1950, we had 25½ per cent. of the trade; last year we had 19·7 per cent., and we have about that figure this year. But most of this fall took place between 1950 and 1951, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite should remember that. Of course, that was due to a number of considerations, as has been the fall over these six or seven years, one of the most important of them being the return of Germany and Japan to full production.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who made an interesting and rather robust free trade speech to begin with—though it was rather spoilt by some illiberal observations on bulk purchase, and so on, at the end—appeared to be debunking the whole of this operation of reducing tariffs. Of course, because of the introduction of some lighter elements in the negotiations—horse radish and other things.—there has been room for humour. But it would really be wrong to underestimate the value to us of even the smallest reductions in the United States tariffs affecting our exports. The reduction on whisky, of course, is not of very great importance, but it is something that we would not wish to refuse. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we did not pay much for it. The reduction in the United States duty on china clay was one to which our industry attached some importance and I am glad we have got it.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East is not here. He raised the question of our duty on machine tools and seemed to want to get rid of it altogether. He has omitted to remember that quite a substantial part of the imports of machine tools come in duty free because of licensing arrangements which we are empowered to adopt by Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1932. In fact, since the beginning of 1955 about 30 per cent. of the machinery imports have had this concession. This is a special concession which has been suspended from time to time.
I hope that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East will be able to explain to his right hon. Gentlemen as forcefully as he explained it to the House the argument that people like the Australians


sometimes use about preferences on capital goods, because what he said about the Agreement respecting duties on machine tools applies in that field, also.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Spence) for his congratulations. He was interested in whether this Agreement should cover quotas, which, as hon. Gentlemen opposite know, are covered in other parts of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. We do not negotiate in the G.A.T.T. on quotas and quantitative restrictions.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) started by being over-sensitive about the speech last night of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, but I will forgive him for that. He then made another point which I will group under two main heads, if I may. First, I will take the dollar balance. The gains we got from the United States amounted, as the White Paper shows, in concessions over trade, in terms of 1954 trade, to £59 million. Our concessions, in the same terms, covered trade of £48 million. Those figures are comparable.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the statistical comparison does not tell us everything we want to know. I said that in my speech, and I admit it frankly. It is the same comparison as his own colleagues in the Government of which he was a member used on three occasions, so I do not think he need have attacked it quite so hard. I say frankly that we have not found a better way to illustrate the effect of these negotiations.
The right hon. Gentleman tried to draw me on the figure—was it £5 million?; I do not know—relating to extra trade which we would get. I simply do not know, and I do not think that the exercise of trying to estimate what we would get is worth anything. These negotiations have given a better opportunity over a very wide field of trade to our exporters. So long as they are competitive they will be so much better able to export more to the world. That is as far as one can go and is as far, incidentally, as the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham went when the same sort of point was taken up with his Government.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Our negotiators must have had some figure in mind of what we were likely to gain or lose. Otherwise, there was no balance at all but only guesswork, and I do not know why they took so many months about it. There must have been some figure in mind of the totality to be aimed at.

Mr. Low: There is the balance. The best statistical way of drawing the balance between gains that we get from other countries and the concessions which we give is the statistical balance which is in the White Paper, and about which I spoke.
The right hon. Gentleman was on another point: are we really right in using these big figures to illustrate our gains? Ought we not to take much smaller figures to show the gains in each area of trade, because we want to know what comes into the balance of payments? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to believe that there is no better way of striking the balance of payments. On the question of how much we have gained, there is no way, as I have already said, of quantifying it. No attempt was made by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham to do it when he spoke to us on the first Agreement and I think he was quite right and wise in what he did. We gained because we had better opportunities to trade.
Before I come to the other points which the right hon. Gentleman made I am now able to answer the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South about Hong Kong and the Bahamas. Hong Kong bound the existing free entry of meal and flour of wheat and spelt, certain citrus fruits, fresh grapes, cotton seed oil, gave guarantees regarding the duties on proprietary medicines and toilet preparations. AU she did was to bind existing free entries, and obtain concessions on furniture, rattan and bamboo and certain compounds containing spirits. The Bahamas reduced the duties on certain meats. That was the main concession we gave from the Bahamas.
I noted the seriousness of the way in which the right hon. Gentleman put the matter to us when he said that this sort of tariff negotiation under the G.A.T.T. was not suiting the interests of the whole world. He said that primary producers were complaining about this and other


aspects of the G.A.T.T. I am not sure whether he was right that they are all complaining.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Some of them are.

Mr. Low: He is right that some of them are. I reply that primary producing countries, just as manufacturing countries, gain by an increase in world trade in manufactured goods.
Our policy is, just as the aim of the G.A.T.T. is, an expansion in world trade. There may be other ways to get it, and one of the ways of which we are all conscious, and which is being debated in the newspapers, is embodied in certain proposals about European free trade. The House knows, from the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it is hoped that we shall have a day's debate on that matter quite soon.
We are always considering how we can help to increase world trade. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to exaggerate the meagreness or the mouse-like nature of these negotiations, or to build up a picture of a moribund G.A.T.T. That would be quite wrong. At the same time, I give him the assurance that we are always thinking of what action can be

taken to increase world trade and, of course, to increase our own trade.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in the 1956 tariff negotiations at Geneva as reported in Command Paper No. 9779.

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES (GENEVA AGREEMENT)

Import Duties (Geneva Agreement) Order, 1956 (SX, 1956, No. 1632), dated 19th October, 1956 [copy laid before the House on 23rd October, in the last Session of Parliament], approved.—[Mr. Low.]

Orders of the Day — CUSTOMS AND EXCISE (SILK DUTIES)

Silk Duties (No. 2) Order, 1956 (SX, 1956, No. 1633), dated 19th October, 1956 [copy laid before the House on 23rd October, in the last Session of Parliament], approved.—[Mr. Low.]

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES (ADDITIONAL) (FRUIT STOCKS AND KENTIA PALMS)

Additional Import Duties (No. 3) Order, 1956 (SX, 1956, No. 1631), dated 19th October, 1956 [copy laid before the House on 23rd October, in the last Session of Parliament], approved.—[Mr. Low.]

Orders of the Day — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (NEWS BROADCASTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Barber.]

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rawlinson: It is a surprising and luxurious circumstance that the Adjournment has been moved at this early hour. I can therefore perhaps escape the usual sound of feet tramping out of the Chamber in making my opening remarks.
Under the threatening heading, "Keep Off", The Times today advises the House that, whatever our individual likes or dislikes about broadcasting programmes, there is nothing that we in this House can do about them. The editor of The Times—described by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) on 8th November from the Opposition Front Bench as, "a rather disgraceful character"—is in fact wrong.

Mr. Kenneth Younger: The hon. Member told me that he was going to refer to that remark, and I think I owe it to the editor of The Times and myself to be a little more precise about what I meant by that one word. What I was referring to was that it seems to me that there has been no clear intellectual or moral basis for The Times editorials over a period of three or four months. There has been such obliquity as has not been seen since Geoffrey Dawson was in charge of The Times in 1938–39.

Mr. Rawlinson: It is surprising that whenever a back bencher gets up to make any remark a Front Bench right hon. Member will interrupt him. The British Broadcasting Corporation is a corporate body set up by Royal Charter, and by Clause 3 of the Charter it is the duty of the Corporation
to provide as public services, broadcasting services of wireless telegraphy
and so on both in sound and television—
visual images with sound. …
to the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and aircraft and ships.
Lord Crawford's Committee of 1925—perhaps the real parent of the present constitution of the Corporation—recommended that the governors should be invested with the maximum freedom which Parliament is prepared to concede, but that Parliament must retain ultimate control. By Clause 15, paragraph 4, of the licence granted to the Corporation, the Government of the day have an absolutely firm veto over the programmes of the Corporation. Of course that is merely a power in reserve to enable Parliament, should it think fit, to secure the compliance of the governors on matters to which Parliament attaches absolute importance. Broadcasting controversial issues is permitted to the Corporation in the faith and the trust that such broadcasting shall be impartial.
As an hon. Member of this House, I attach basic importance to that faith and trust. Unlike right hon. Members opposite, I make no comment on the character of the editor of The Times. It may be that "auld acquaintance" is never forgot and there may be some desire to shield the British Broadcasting Corporation, some sense of nostalgia which has been drifting from Printing House Square to Broadcasting House that led him to defend the Corporation. I have no intention of being deterred—nor has any hon. Member—from raising this issue of basic importance, nor of being silenced by the opinion which has emitted from, I agree, that muddle-headed quarter.
The Corporation is a powerful, alert and influential organisation. No hon. Member would deny that. I do not think it needs any outside defender. I know from personal experience. Within three days of learning that I was to raise this matter on the Adjournment tonight I accepted a social engagement to luncheon with a friend only to find that I was engaged in conversation with another guest, an eminence grise of the directorate, who had arranged the luncheon in order to meet me, to find out, I presume, what I had to say and why I was going to say it. I am quite certain that such conversation as we had went back to the proper quarter.
The motives for setting up the Corporation were to provide a public service. It is described as a public service. Anybody who engages in public service, as we in this House know only too well and to


our cost, finds that in most cases that involves and entails criticism and complaints. It involves not only ourselves but those who enter the public service—the Civil Service, the service of the Crown or whatever it may be—and in such a position one must be man enough to accept the criticism which inevitably will be flung at one.
I cannot understand why this Corporation should be so remarkably sensitive. I appreciate the privileged position of a Member of Parliament. He is able to raise matters of criticism and complaint privileged from any form of legal action, privileged to have this forum in which to speak. I agree and accept that those opportunities should be taken with responsibility. I am the first to acknowledge the Corporation's difficulty. I accept that it has to steer a middle course, which is difficult enough for anyone. I agree that it has to forgo expressing its own opinions. It cannot have an editorial opinion and express itself.
I agree that when men speak in public, again as we in this House know to our cost, there are many times when one may say things, lay emphasis, or use words which one does not in fact intend. That must happen occasionally—in particular, I should imagine, before the television cameras. Nevertheless, I felt constrained to say that I share what I believe to be a widespread impression that the Corporation has not maintained standards of impartiality during the past few weeks over the crisis in the Middle East.
My principal ground of comment and complaint is not, of course, about the time given to either one side or the other. That, I am sure, is or may be fairly balanced, but it is on matters of emphasis, matters of selection, matters of nuance, the use of adjective, the use of tone, that I raise objection, giving what is so well known to be a "slant" on the news. The spoken word sounds so very different to the hearer at the time than when it is read afterwards. When we hear the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), leaning across the Dispatch Box, saying to the Government, "We want to know, we want to know," a considerable impression is created, but when we read that in the OFFICIAL REPORT it has none of the force and emphasis given by the person making the speech.
Often what it not said is as telling as what is said. The use of an adjective is important. If one speaks of a savage attack one can put into the word "savage" all the savagery one wishes and give an impression of the strength or success of that savagery. One may talk about "a major speech of the Leader of the Opposition" and suggest that the other speeches were of less importance. All these are matters of selectiveness in reporting and not matters of editorship. I do not know whether there have been reported the speeches and views of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) as we have had reported the divisions on this side of the House. Have we had reported the Cairo broadcast asking for volunteers which has been reproduced by Moscow radio?
Most of these may be small examples, but they add up to something which, I think, shows that the Corporation is guilty of partiality. An example is that on 13th November at 9 a.m. on the Light Programme news there was a report of a speech by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). It was reported that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was greeted with cheers. There was them a reference to the reply by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was reported without comment.
On 11th November, Radio Newsreel gave a recording of the Albert Hall meeting including crowds chanting "Eden must go."

Mr. Gordon Walker: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rawlinson: I join issue with the right hon. Gentleman. The report of the Albert Hall meeting included cheers for the Leader of the Opposition and chants of "Eden must go." The balance of that was merely to give an extract from the Prime Minister's Mansion House speech on the Swiss proposals and none of the argument about the Suez crisis. There are many similar points, which my hon. Friends certainly know, and which might appear in detail unimportant, but which in the aggregate assume a considerable significance.
I want to refer particularly to three matters. On 5th November, in the programme entitled "Panorama", the link between Hungary and the Suez, which was so assiduously sought by right hon.
and hon. Gentlemen opposite, was directly introduced. At the end of that programme reference was made to the anger of refugees that Suez had replaced Hungary in the headlines and their fear that it might be used as a bargaining factor in deciding their future. Was this and could this have been the general, widespread opinion of those unfortunate, tragic but simple people who were fleeing from Russian tanks? How was that question put? How was it posed? Who raised it first? It was first introduced at the end of a particular programme.
On the television news of 6th November, a commentary was given purporting to be a report of the proceedings in this House on the day on which the Prime Minister reported on the cease-fire at Port Said, and a totally false impression was given by the commentator that evening. Emphasis was given to the Opposition's cheering of the Prime Minister's speech and the commentator claimed that shouts of "Resign" were directed at the Prime Minister.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Quite true.

Mr. Rawlinson: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at The Times which reported the news the next day and said that the Prime Minister was greeted by a standing ovation, spreading to the Members' Galleries. The Opposition seemed amused, said the report, and it was the Leader of the Opposition who was greeted with cries of "Resign".
This inaccurate and biased report which I have just mentioned was followed by a filmed report of the Albert Hall meeting—perhaps the right hon. Member for Smethwick and other right hon. Members were there—with pictures of the Leader of the Opposition appearing covered with glee. This followed straight after the scenes which had been reported in the television news, giving a wrong, false and, in my view, harmful impression.
On 12th November, in the programme to which I have already referred, "Panorama", there were given purported interviews in the various capitals of the world with various men in the street. I wonder who selected those men in the street. Of course, one can always find those in the street who will agree with one and will oppose the Government. But

why choose, in the main, as they did, those who opposed the Government?
I want to turn to the question of United States opinion. First of all, the reporter got through to Washington, and there again the impression was given that the whole of American opinion was against this country and France. That is utter and absolute nonsense. When a journalist from Tel Aviv was interviewed he had some document which had been captured showing what Egypt had intended to do with Israel and then commented, "A good job well done". The questioner then said he did not agree with something which the journalist had said, and added, sarcastically and with a sneer, "A good job well done!" If the broadcast is impartial, why is that done?
An explanation may well be the effect of the personality of the questioner himself. I think it is well known that he is a former member of the Socialist party and a former Under-Secretary of State in the Socialist Government. I do not know his qualifications, and it is not for me to inquire into why he should be doing this task, but where is his prejudice likely to lie? When such people telephone in the programme to a correspondent in New York, Whom did they choose? They picked the correspondent of the Observer—a newspaper which had certainly made its views known—and asked what he thought about the present crisis. They chose a correspondent well known to me, a personal friend of mine, and a former member of the Labour Party. Of course, they are all of the same club. If one wandered into White's it is unlikely that one would find anybody, except the right hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes), who would be in favour of the Opposition's views.
Of course, once we have a situation in which a programme is being handled in this way, only answers opposed to the Government would be received to the question. The fact that such programmes are presided over with sauve urbanity by somebody whose voice we are more accustomed to hear on the more non-controversial ceremonial occasions does not disguise the fact that these programmes going out to a wide audience are in my view biased and unfair.
I want to deal, next, with overseas broadcasts. I understand that the general overseas broadcasts pay special attention


to audiences in the Commonwealth, British Forces and British communities, whereas the European services go out in the main to Europe, putting the British point of view in comments and Press reviews. These external services are financed by a grant-in-aid of over £5 million voted by the House, and I think it is proper that Parliament should inquire how this money is being used. This service for which the grant-in-aid is given includes, at 6 a.m. in the European News Services, a summary of Press comment. I do not know what its purpose is, but presumably it is to show what the British people are reading, not what journalists are writing. If it is to show what people are reading, in the main, one would imagine that the papers with the largest circulations would be the papers chosen.

Mr. Norman Dodds: Why?

Mr. Rawlinson: If we want to give what people are reading in the majority of cases, that is what we should do. It is only if we want to see what people are writing or, as I shall mention in a moment, what the few are reading that we should give extracts from what the few are reading. We should certainly give a considerable amount more from what more people are reading.
Yet in the period 5th November to 8th November the papers with the largest circulation—the Daily Express and the Daily Mirror were not quoted very often; the Daily Express was quoted twice and the Daily Mirror once. Nearly half the words quoted in that period came from The Times, over which the friend of the right hon. Member for Grimsby presides, and the Manchester Guardian; and the only paper mentioned every single day was the paper with the lowest circulation, the Manchester Guardian, with about 163,000 readers.
I should like to know whether these broadcasts were heard in Cyprus prior to the assault. I should like to know whether the reports of the European service went out to the troops and could have been heard by the troops there. I understand from various sources that there have been complaints from troops already back in this country, but I should like to know whether in fact these broadcasts reached the troops

there. If so, were the extracts read from the Manchester Guardian heard by our troops?
May I give a few examples from the editorials of the Manchester Guardian? On 31st October they described the Suez policy as an act of folly without justification in any terms. On 1st November they described it as a disaster of the first magnitude and said,
It is wrong on every count—moral, military and political".
The editorial said that beyond a first success
stretches the nightmare of endless skirmishings and harassings".
If those words reached the troops by broadcasts paid for by public money and by the taxpayer, is not that calculated to create doubts and divisions among the men?

Mr. George Wigg: I hope so.

Mr. Rawlinson: I understand from the hon. Gentleman's interjection that he hopes that doubt and division were caused among our troops if these words were read to them at a time when they were about to go into this assault. I have had personal experience of this, as perhaps have many hon. Members on both sides. I can remember during the war, while I was in a wagon in an olive grove, picking up a broadcast of news from home—I think in 1943—in which there was some talk of a strike. The anger which that caused all of us at that time can be imagined. I am not talking of whether the strike was good or bad, but of the anger which that broadcast news caused people about to be engaged in battle. What more stupid action could be taken than to have such news reaching troops just before a battle?
The overseas broadcast should speak in the name of the Government of the day. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It should broadcast the foreign policy of that Government of the day. I speak here of the overseas broadcasts, and in regard to foreign policy. That should be the policy of the Government of the day approved by this House; the foreign policy of the Government which is maintained by a majority of this House. That should be the only thing that should be sent out in the name of this country. I would refer to a pamphlet which has been sent to me called "Britain's Voice Abroad." That,


I think, sets out many of the things that should be done, such as the setting up of a Ministry of Information, so that, in overseas affairs, this country should have a proper propaganda voice to go out all over the world.
I believe that in the last few weeks the British Broadcasting Corporation has failed to maintain that standard which it ought to have maintained. The Ullswater Committee in 1935 said that the object of B.B.C. news bulletins should be:
… a fair selection of items impartially presented.
I and many of my hon. Friends,, and many of my fellow-countrymen, have an uneasy opinion that the B.B.C. has fallen short of that standard of fairness and impartiality.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) has been complaining of the selectivity of the B.B.C., but I must say that he has given an extraordinarily good example of selective quotation, and has deliberately set out to give a very false and prejudiced impression of the broadcasts sent out in this country and abroad by the B.B.C. He quoted the television programme called "Panorama", which dealt with Hungary and Suez in the same programme. But these two things happened in the same week. They happened together. Is he asking the B.B.C. to suppress from the viewers either the events in Suez or the events in Hungary?

Mr. Rawlinson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. Member said that it was a terrible thing that the two were put together—that there was a link between them—but there has been tremendous talk, as everyone knows, in Central Europe—and particularly among those who are near to Hungary—about what they regard as a very sad thing: that the attention of the world was diverted from Hungary to Egypt. There is no doubt that this has been widely said, and to have failed to report it would have been a suppression of news. That is the only link there was in this B.B.C. programme between these two things—things that happened.

Mr. Rawlinson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. Gentleman quoted it, and said that this link was made, but it would have been a suppression of news not to have mentioned both these events.

Mr. Rawlinson: I did not, in fact, say that. There were two programmes of "Panorama" to which I referred. The one on 5th November was purely the link which was sought among the refugees coming from Hungary. What I wanted to know was the form of the question put to such refugees, which asked them to say that they were so much upset by the fact that the news of Suez should have driven the news of Hungary from the newspapers.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It would have taken most skilful work to suppress that, because everyone knows that it was being said that the coincidence of the two things was extremely unfortunate.
Not only the B.B.C., but the whole of the Press has reported that the Hungarians were very disturbed. They were not blaming the British Government, but they were very disturbed that the coincidence of the two items had diverted attention from Hungary to Egypt—and it certainly succeeded in dong that, both here and abroad. Vast numbers of refugees were saying this, and for the B.B.C. so to have framed its questions as to elicit a different answer would have ben gross misreporting.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider this to be unbiased reporting? During the first week of the wonderful fight put up by the Freedom Fighters in Hungary, I listened to practically every news broadcast. There was not one word spoken of the Freedom Fighters. Further, later in the week, the B.B.C. issued a Communist statement saying that the fighting was over. If that is not biased, I do not know what is.

Mr. Gordon Walker: And were not such reports of that statement appearing in the newspapers? The B.B.C. must give the news, which may consist, also, of statements put out which may not be true.

Mr. Howard: In every newspaper there were reports of the Freedom Fighters, but there was not one word about them on the B.B.C.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Of course there were. I heard them myself. The hon. Member must have been very unfortunate. I distinctly remember, during the first week, reports of the Freedom Fighters—reports giving a very vivid picture. It may be that the hon. Member missed one.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Mr. Gerald Nabarro (Kidderminster) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are two many interventions. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be allowed to continue.

Mr. Nabarro: On the news last Sunday, the B.B.C.'s own reporter from Hungary was given only five minutes to give his personal account of events in that country.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am very glad to hear it. Five minutes is a very considerable amount of time to be allotted in a news broadcast. I am grateful for the hon. Member's support.
The hon. Member for Epsom made a great deal of fuss about the B.B.C. saying that there were shouts of "Resign" when the Prime Minister announced the ceasefire, and that those shouts of "Resign" were directed at the Prime Minister. He seems to have thought that because The Times said that the shouts were directed at the Leader of the Opposition, The Times must be right and the B.B.C. wrong. I was present on that occasion. I am not sure that the word "Resign" did not escape my lips, but I am quite sure that, if it did, it did not refer to the Leader of the Opposition. The answer is that different observers of the same scene can draw different conclusions from it. Certainly, shouts of "Resign" were directed at the Prime Minister at that time.
The hon. Member says that the B.B.C. was monstrous because, in this week of action in Egypt, by the British Government, the Corporation tried to collect the opinions of men in the street all over the world, and that a good many of those reports turned out to be unfavourable to the Government. The simple fact is that that was the state of world opinion at the time. It was not very easy in America or India, or anywhere outside France—and some people in this country

—to find someone supporting this country's action. To have kept those opinions quiet would have needed selective action by the B.B.C. in its search for interviews. As a matter of fact, world opinion is still strongly against us. I think that the Foreign Secretary would find it very unwise to go to Washington from New York. If he did, he would find himself up against a lot of hostile opinion which, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman would like the B.B.C. to suppress.
There have been, as the hon. Member did not mention, some very clear statements, programmes and talks on the B.B.C. in support of the Government's case. That is quite right—quite right. No one on this side objects to that, but the hon. Gentleman did not trouble to make even formal reference to them. There have been talks, and so on, by Mr. Sidney Carroll, Sir Alec Kirkbride and others; quite clear, strong statements, with which I totally disagree, though I am quite sure that they should have been broadcast because, of course, these things should be broadcast.
Nevertheless, the hon. Member seems to think that only defences of the Government's policy should foe broadcast. He certainly said that about overseas matters, but the burden of his speech seemed to be that anything which could possibly be twisted into criticism of the Government was worthy of his comment, while he absolutely ignored important comment and statements that were made in favour of the Government.
When the hon. Member came to what he said about the Overseas Service of the B.B.C., I was really appalled to hear any hon. Member uttering that sort of ideas, and I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will make it quite clear that we are not going to have any direct censorship by the Government in pursuit of their own policy of the Overseas Service or, indeed, any party political considerations entering into the control, running and content of our Overseas Service.
The hon. Gentleman gave as an example of this sort of thing something which has been going on for many years, and which goes out in many languages, that is, a review of opinion in the Press and particularly in periodicals. He seemed to think that one only reads things to find out what the people are reading.
Does he not read the New York Times, which reaches here? I read that not to hear what Americans are reading, but to ascertain specifically what the New York Times is saying. This B.B.C. programme has been going on for a long time and we have had long experience of what listeners want to hear.
After all, one of the purposes of broadcasting is to give the listener what he wants to hear. Many people abroad want to know the views of certain opinion-forming papers like The Times, the Manchester Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, and others. That has been found to be the experience. People abroad, and many newspapermen among them, want to discover what papers like the Manchester Guardian, in particular, and The Times and others are saying. One of the functions of broadcasting is to broadcast what the listeners want to listen to, especially in overseas broadcasting.
It is extremely easy for anyone to turn off overseas broadcasting. If we broadcast in the overseas programmes only news of which the Government of the day approve, and which we strictly censor, there would be no listeners at all. The only reason that the B.B.C. has its enormous tradition in the world is that it reports freely, objectively and evenly the views and different ideas held in this country. If we had the hon. Gentleman's appalling ideas of censorship and direction from the Government he might be satisfied to hear that all this was going on the air, but it would not be impinging on anyone's ears.
No one wants to listen to propaganda of that sort. That is what the hon. Gentleman said—that the views of the Opposition should be suppressed and that there should be no balance in our broadcasting overseas. Does the hon. Gentleman think that we are going to get listeners on those terms, when other people will be broadcasting views expressed by Liberal people, Labour people and others and when Britain specifically, when there is a Conservative Government, will be broadcasting only Conservative opinion and, when there is a Labour Government, broadcasting only Labour opinion?

Mr. Rawlinson: I never said anything about opinion. All that I said was that

in my view overseas broadcasts should be used by the Government of the day, whatever their colour, to speak the foreign policy of this country all over the world.

Mr. Gordon Walker: If anybody in England criticises that policy then I suppose his speeches are to be suppressed. If not, what does the hon. Gentleman mean? Of course, when the Prime Minister makes a statement the B.B.C. gives great prominence to it overseas, and if there is criticism it gives some time to that accordingly. If the hon. Gentleman means that all the views on both sides are to be given equally then, of course, we will be going on as we are now and he will not have what he wants.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: I have listened with considerable interest to the right hon. Gentleman. During the height of the Mau Mau disturbances in Kenya I, in common with some of my colleagues, had conversations with the Director-General of the B.B.C., in which we complained that certain of the B.B.C. programmes were likely to give strength and support to Mau Mau elements out there. We had very carefully drawn to our attention then, by Sir Ian Jacob, that careful distinction must be drawn between home and overseas programmes. The right hon. Gentleman is ignoring the opinion of the Director-General that the general purpose should be to carry out the overseas policy of the Government of the day. He is speaking against what the Director-General said at that time.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I am saying what the Director-General has often said to me, and not only the present Director-General but previous Director-Generals—that one of the basic principles of our overseas news service, in particular, is that there should not be a distinction between the news broadcast to our own people at home and that broadcast to people abroad. A general service programme is going to people abroad and even within their own countries; and if someone listening hears that the British are broadcasting different news to different areas it immediately destroys our impartiality in the world.
I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman properly understood what the Director-General was saying, because this has been the principle of overseas broadcasting and an absolutely right one,


because any departure from it or any hint to the listener which he can pick up by reading the papers that the British are fiddling things, picking out things and broadcasting differing views—

Mr. Bennett: I did not say that we should send abroad different sorts of news. I said, with emphasis, that the overseas programme should go along in accordance with the foreign policy of this country. That was the only phrase that I used, and that was the undertaking which I was given by the Director-General at that time.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It does not seem that the hon. Gentleman has altered it at all. He is now saying that the news bulletin for abroad should be emphasised in a different way from broadcasts at home. If he is not talking about news bulletins he must be talking only about talks and he is saying, "We agree that the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite should be censored and programmes ought to be different according to the audience to which they are going." That would be absolutely fatal.
The overseas broadcasts must reflect as fairly as the people doing it can manage the views of Britain. What we stand to gain in the world is a picture of British democracy at work, the clash of views and argument. And we are putting that across to people who do not have to listen and who can very easily switch off, and who, on the whole, are inclined to switch off. If we are to have a selected emphasised programme they will just turn off and the money spent will be completely wasted—money which is very well spent at the moment. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will give a completely firm and negative reply to the really dangerous suggestions which have come from behind him.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) has chosen this subject for debate because it has come at the end of a period when we in this House have had greater strains, probably greater arguments and probably higher feeling than at any time for many years.
I have always had the greatest admiration for the way in which the B.B.C.

Parliamentary reporters have plucked the main content of our debates, which are often rather woolly, and have summarised and made sense out of them. But I am bound to point out that that very high standard does not appear to have been maintained during the last 14 days. One has had an opportunity of sitting in this Chamber through hours of debate and then going home and, in case there has been fresh news, immediately listening to the reports of our debates on the nine or ten o'clock news. In that way, one has had a first-class opportunity of comparing what actually happened with what, in fact, was meant to have happened in the eyes of the B.B.C. Parliamentary reporters.
I should like to quote one or two examples where, I must say, they were blatantly biased. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that on Thursday, 1st November, the Prime Minister made his first major speech in the crisis, and when he sat down he was given a tremendous welcome and prolonged cheers from this side of the House. I have looked through the journals the following day and every one of them reports that fact. The Times, which has not been particularly friendly to the Government in the latter part of this crisis, reports that when the Prime Minister sat down there were
(Loud and prolonged Ministerial cheers).
I understand that in the modest terms of The Times that is equivalent to a five-star programme, as it were, if I may borrow the jargon of Michelin to describe these things. That is the the strongest applause that can be recorded in that sedate paper. The other papers did very much the same.
When I listened to the report of this occasion on the B.B.C. I was amazed. There was no such comment whatever, and apparently the Prime Minister sat down in complete silence. I therefore sent for the script, and I have it with me. After saying that the scenes had been described by many as the most remarkable in living memory, which I am sure, Mr. Speaker, must be very close to your mind, the report goes on:
There was a loud burst of cheering when the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Gaitskell, asked, 'Is the Minister aware that millions of British people were profoundly shocked and ashamed?' 
At the end of the report of the Prime Minister's speech there was a complete


blank. Was that accidental, or was it biased and slanted?
If I may take another example, we had on 5th November the cease-fire. There was a flash signal and it raised tremendous interest in the House. I remember that these benches were extremely elated and very excited.

Mr. James Callaghan: Hysterical.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: In fact, The Times said:
Conservative Members jumped to their feet cheering jubilantly.
When I listened to the proceedings there was very modest jubilation, to put it mildly, on the other side of the House. The papers the next day said that hon. Members opposite looked extremely gloomy. That was the general reporting of all the newspapers, but there was no mention of this at all on the B.B.C. In fact, it was rather biased in the other direction.
I then came across another example. I only raise these points because I have received lots of letters and representations on this matter from many quarters. This is not just an idea of my own. Many people feel most strongly. I came across the report by Richard Scott in what is generally an extremely interesting programme, "The World and Ourselves," from 8.15 to 8.30. On Thursday, 8th November, he finished with these words:
Whatever one may feel about the rights and wrongs of our action against Egypt, they have played some part in the Russian action.
He was dealing with the connection between Hungary and Suez, which has been so dear to the Opposition. He says, in conclusion:
The Russian forces were pulling out of Hungary and then we went into Egypt. Russian forces were sent back into Hungary in greater numbers.
That, it has since been revealed, is absolutely untrue.
The Foreign Secretary, from the Dispatch Box, before the Suez operation was launched, said that although Press reports said that the Russians were pulling out, his information from Hungary was that their forces were moving in. All hon. Gentlemen who were in the House at the time will remember that fact. In yesterday's debate it was revealed that

Shepilov himself, as reported in the Daily Herald, said the same, that they were reinforcing. This item, which is meant to be objective comment in an important listening hour, was inaccurate and, I maintain, biased.

Mr. Callaghan: Let us get quite clear what the complaint is. This man Richard Scott, whoever he is, is presumably one commentator among numerous Press commentators who all reported that the Russians were pulling out. Why should the hon. Gentleman assume that he was biased? At a later date the Foreign Secretary was able to say from information available to him that in fact all those reporters and commentators were wrong. How does that prove bias?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Foreign Secretary said before Suez was launched, in answer to a supplementary question, that his information was that the Russians were reinforcing, and that was contrary to the general reports that had been received. I ought perhaps to add that Mr. Scott is a member of the Manchester Guardian staff, so that one might expect him to express a view which might not be in accord with Government policy.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Should there, then, be censorship of the B.B.C.?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that that is too trivial a point to be taken up.
I now come to the programme "Panorama", to which attention has been drawn. I think that that programme on 12th November, which I saw and of which I made careful notes, was extremely heavily biased. I am not going to enter into the 14-day rule controversy, but, certainly, the programme paid no attention to that. As a matter of fact, I have always been opposed to the rule. The programme managed to select Berliners, every one of whom came to the conclusion that Britain had been the aggressor. Then two or three French people were found who were apparently not interested in Egypt where their forces were fighting and dying, but who said that this was a tragedy for Hungary. I cannot believe that there was not the most careful selection of people who held that point of view, and that led to a series of interviews.
I was also rather sorry that the B.B.C. overlooked the contribution made by the


right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) who, after all, as a former Labour Minister of Defence, holds an opinion which should be greatly valued in overseas broadcasts. It was reported on the I.T.A. that
…the former Labour Defence Minister said that Franco-British intervention in the Middle East was 'inevitable.' 'I think it will be shown', he said, 'that our action, although drastic and fraught with difficulties and dangers, will prove in the long-run to have been right'.
The B.B.C. made no reference to that in any of its news bulletins.

Mr. Wigg: Of course, the B.B.C. might have had some regard for taste. My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) had gone abroad, I think, as a representative of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and in all good taste he might, therefore, have kept his mouth shut on controversial matters.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not going to say that the former Minister of Defence should be censored?

Mr. Wigg: He should censor himself.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are not anxious to see the B.B.C. put in the box, but we have an obligation in this House to draw attention to errors when they occur. The B.B.C. has a very strong position in the minds, and, I believe, in the hearts as well, of many people in this country. We do not wish to see it drift into biased reporting when it has previously set a very high standard. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General might consider the setting up of an inquiry—I do not mean an outside inquiry, but an inquiry within the B.B.C.—to look into the reporting and the general slant which has been given during the last 14 days. This might help to calm some of those fears which many of us now feel.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Any hon. Member speaking from this side of the House is under a considerable disadvantage, because obviously the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) came here with a well prepared brief. It is none the worst for that. After all, he comes here with a brief and one must answer that brief. It appears, by the stamp of it, that it was worked out at

the Tory Central Office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I think that the Tory Central Office could work this brief out very well without any advice from hon. Members opposite. This brief has been well worked out, if not by the Tory Office, then by someone else. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman burnt much midnight oil over it himself. He did not smell so much of the lamp when he spoke.

Mr. Rawlinson: My words are my own words; they are the sweat of my own brow.

Mr. Pannell: I can only say that it is most remarkable, but if the hon. Gentleman assures me of that, of course I believe him.

Mr. Rawlinson: Mr. Rawlinson rose—

Mr. Pannell: No, I cannot give way too many times to the hon. Gentleman. I have accepted what he says. He has instituted himself as a monitoring service—

Mr. Rawlinson: Mr. Rawlinson rose—

Mr. Pannell: Let me finish. He has searched all through the scripts. He has rushed away from the debates in this House, and directly he tunes in something happens which offends his sensitive ear.

Mr. Rawlinson: Perhaps I misled the hon. Gentleman. When he talked about "briefs", I understood him to mean briefs in the technical sense, as I know-something about briefs. All I meant was that my speech was my own. I say that facts are facts, and I have presented them, to this House. I do not say that I heard, every broadcast to which I referred.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman has given me my case. He came here with a brief in the political sense—a political brief—prepared by someone who wished to prove a case; and the hon. Gentleman has digested the stuff which was prepared for him.
I have worked on other people's briefs in my time and this is supposed to be the "sixth form" of politics and not the "prep school". After all, the hon. Gentleman does come from Epsom where they know more about the Jockey Club than anything else. Let us be sensible about this. If the normal business of the House had gone the full period, the hon.
Gentleman would probably have had a quarter-of-an-hour in which to speak, and then the Assistant Postmaster-General would have replied. I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will not consider it offensive if I say that both he and the hon. Member are members of the same political party, and I have no doubt that the Assistant Postmaster-General would have robustly defended the B.B.C. But it is fortunate that this evening we have more time in which to examine this brief.
Having got it clear that this brief was probably worked out by the Tory Central Office, the charge presumably is that the B.B.C. has not given the Government a fair crack of the whip in a time of considerable difficulty when the Government have been under considerable criticism. I have arrived back where I started; it is difficult for anyone, speaking from this side of the House, to answer and put up a case and examine every one of those instances which have been recorded. I think the hon. Gentleman will admit that.
The hon. Member said that words are different when they are spoken from when they are written. Of course that is true. I recall all the emotionally-toned question-begging phrases of the Prime Minister day after day, when he was retreating from the half-truth of the day before—a catalogue of which was given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens). It was a time of very great emotion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) was cheered. The hon. Member criticised that, and then objected because the B.B.C. did not record that the Prime Minister was cheered enough.

Mr. Rawlinson: The Chancellor was cheered and they did not mention that.

Mr. Pannell: I remember writing an article for a paper, and I remember that speech, and I remember saying that it was a speech which the Chancellor would want to forget.
It is all a question of the point of view. When the hon. Member for Epsom is referred to by his constituents, presumably they refer to him as a remarkable up-and-coming young politician. But the Epsom Labour Party might refer to him as a "cheap careerist" or something like that. It is only a matter of

taste and one has to be careful. That is part of the stock in trade of democracy. We support our friends and we set about our enemies.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Pannell: How many more?

Sir Henry Studholme: The hon. Gentleman is making my hon. Friend's case for him. The B.B.C. is not a political party, and should not be.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member had better be careful. I once went with him on a tour to Belgium. When he gets outside this Chamber the hon. Gentleman is quite an agreeable individual. But in this Chamber the other week he was going into hysterics. It merely indicates how people get all hot under the collar when they start discussing this sort of thing.
Over the years the B.B.C. has built up a reputation for the faithful recording of news. It is one of the "chips" on the shoulders of the newspapers that, generally speaking, the people of this country believe less and less what they read in the newspapers. They read the newspapers for enjoyment and entertainment and turn to the radio for real news. I give it as a generalisation that the political influence of a newspaper is in inverse ratio to its circulation.

Mr. Nabarro: The Daily Mirror.

Mr. Pannell: I am giving that as a general opinion. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Daily Express."] All right, take the Express if hon. Members wish. I am merely taking those two papers, one which is behind the Government and one against them, but broadly speaking the opinion-forming newspapers of this country are not those with a mass circulation. I offended a respectable Yorkshire newspaper on one occasion. The newspaper had attacked me and suggested that I was "going down the drain". When at the declaration of the poll I got a 7,000 majority, I said it was a good thing that the "tripe" that goes into the papers today often only wraps up the fish and chips.
It is easy to make these general charges against broadcasting. My interest in this House, apart from my interest as the representative of West Leeds, is that I am I trade union representative. The


general charge which I would bring against the B.B.C. is a lack of trade union speakers, particularly in programmes like "Any Questions," and particularly on occasions—

Mr. Nabarro: Why?

Mr. Pannell: Just one moment. That is particularly so when trade union questions are discussed, such as, for example, the question of sending strikers to Coventry. As a man with a life-time of experience in the trade union movement, and as one who has been on strike himself many times, that criticism has often occurred to me. I may as well take the House fully into my confidence and say that from time to time when I have heard the silly answers given by hon. Members who sit on this side of the House and who happen to be on the panel on such occasions, I have thought that they displayed a lack of understanding of the trade union movement.

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Nabarro rose—

Mr. Pannell: No, I cannot give way too many times—we are not debating carpets now.
I want now to deal with a point which was made by the hon. Member for Epsom. He particularly criticised "Panorama." What was the objection? My intervening on this subject is largely the result of a personal friendship with Woodrow Wyatt. Wyatt was an Under-Secretary of State for War, and I defy any hon. Member who knew him to dispute his robust patriotism, as a result of which he was prepared to stand against many people in the Labour Party. He had a robust patriotism, freely expressed, and a remarkable degree of courage. He is an honest witness; he would not pervert the truth to the disadvantage of this country. What is his record? He went straight from school into the Forces, and then from the Forces into Parliament. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know him. He may have a point of view which is dissimilar to that of some people, but no one can doubt his integrity.
The programme is not generally under the control of Woodrow Wyatt. I believe it is generally steered by Richard Dimbleby. I hope I am not doing Dimbleby a grave injustice, but I imagine that he may be as far removed

on one side of the political fence as Woodrow Wyatt is on the other. Dimbleby's is the delightful voice which records Royal occasions with a remarkable degree of dignity. His is a remarkable personality. Surely one gets a balance in personalities there. One can almost imagine the reverent hush in Dimbleby's voice when Royalty is mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman put forward the doctrine that the B.B.C.'s overseas broadcasts should, in the main, be the voice of the Government. Let us look at that doctrine in the light of political history. Just before I entered the House, when I was fighting my by-election in 1949, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), then Leader of the Opposition, made a terrific speech at Wolverhampton in which he castigated the whole of the British people as Weary Willies and Tired Tims. It amounted to a general view of the slothfulness of the British people living upon American charity.
If one likes to equate that with the values of the hon. Member for Epsom, I cannot imagine anything more damaging to British morale and prestige at that time when we were fighting an economic battle. We had had devaluation, which, in the economic field, was as difficult and as dangerous an operation as the one in which we have just been engaged. Surely the hon. Member would not say that the right hon. Member for Woodford at that time, having been the wartime Prime Minister, should not have received great coverage in the international news as a responsible leader of British opinion.

Mr. Rawlinson: I made it quite clear in my speech that I was referring to matters of foreign policy. I said that on matters of foreign policy the overseas programmes should speak the Government's policy.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman gets himself into a difficulty. He says "matters of foreign policy". Surely our foreign policies are influenced by the type of people we are. When an ex-Prime Minister makes a speech of the kind that the right hon. Member for Woodford did about American aid, is that not a matter of foreign policy? Of course it is. The overseas broadcast is in the main presenting Britain to the world. The


things that we do at home are as important as the things we do in Egypt.
How does this doctrine stand up in the light of later circumstances? In 1950 and 1951 the Labour Government had a majority of six. I can imagine what would have happened if this doctrine had been enunciated by the B.B.C. at that time. When a country is as evenly divided as ours is, we cannot say that the Government which happens to have a majority at a certain time shall have its view alone broadcast and that there shall be no reference to the view of anybody else. What happened between 1951 and 1955? The Government had a majority in the House but a minority in the Government.
The idea that, somehow, a propaganda view can be put over will not stand. I believe that the hon. Member advanced his theory in good faith, but it will not stand up to democratic processes. We must face self-criticism from time to time. When I was recently in America I found that the people there would stand any amount of criticism provided they believed it was fundamentally sincere. That is one of the best things about the American people.
I was asked to speak at a foreign policy forum at Pittsburgh. I am not a member of the biggest club in the House of Commons, that of the potential Foreign Secretaries, and so I gave an address on "Why an Englishman must occasionally disagree with the Americans". That is a foreign policy subject in the context of England and America.
When the right hon. Member for Woodford was saying that we were Weary Willies and Tired Tims, I had to spend a lot of time pointing out that by all the national indices of production rates, production per man-hour, and so on, we were the champions of the first division in the European league. Was that not a foreign policy subject? In a democracy one cannot allow the Government of the day to decide what shall be sent out on the Overseas broadcasts of the B.B.C.
There is also the question, mentioned by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing), of what the Foreign Secretary said about troops in Hungary. I speak from memory here. I thought the Foreign Secretary said that

Soviet troops were there in substantial numbers.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: The hon. Member says that he is relying on his recollection. I have the quotations hare. In the broadcast about which my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) was complaining in "The World and Ourselves" on Thursday, 8th November, the following words were used:
Whatever one may feel about the wrongs of it, our action against Egypt has played some part in Russian action. Russian forces were pulling out of Hungary, and then we went into Egypt and Russian forces were sent back into Hungary in greater numbers.
On 29th October the Foreign Secretary, in response to a query from the Leader of the Opposition, made this statement:
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the movement of additional troops. Our information is in accordance with what he said, that further Soviet troops are being moved into Hungary towards the capital."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th October, 1956; Vol. 558, c. 1072.]
That was nine days before the broadcast which said precisely the opposite.

Mr. Pannell: I have a recollection of it being said at some stage or other that a considerable number of troops were in Hungary at that time.
In moments of considerable passion we are inclined to feel that our side is doing well and that the other side is, in all the circumstances, doing rather poorly. Otherwise we should not be political partisans. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Epsom will appreciate that, given a similar amount of time and a similar body of researchers beside me, I could have picked out items from the B.B.C.'s broadcasts to prove the opposite of what he set out to prove. The hon. Gentleman has had a considerable advantage this evening, although I do not think that he meant to be unfair. I I am sure he will grant that there is in the minds of people abroad a considerable connection between Hungary and Egypt. I do not want to labour that; I merely want to make my point clear. I rather take the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) who spoke yesterday.
Generally speaking, whatever the rights or wrongs, it is undoubtedly true that while we were diverting ourselves in Egypt we were not completely free and united as a nation to face the Hungarian war


threat which, in my view, was a greater one than that which we faced in Egypt. That is purely a matter of opinion. To that extent—that a greater evil was committed—there is a degree of guilt in the matter. That is purely a point of view, but I am sure the hon. Member will accept that among all sorts of people this view is shared to a considerable extent.
With all its shortcomings, I believe that the B.B.C. has built up in this country a tradition of faithful reporting, which lends to keep the newspapers on the right lines.

8.0 p.m.

Sir Robert Grimston: The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) referred to the fact that he had not had time to conduct research into this question—and that is quite understood. But I would tell him that one of the objects of raising this matter is that there shall be some research into the question, because many of my hon. Friends feel—and my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) has adduced a good deal of evidence in the matter—that in this crisis the B.B.C. has shown both a direct bias and a bias by way of slant, in the presentation of news, and so on, against the Government. That is a serious charge to make, and we should not make it if we did not feel from our own observations, and also from what we have heard from other people, that the matter needs inquiring into.
I should like to deal, first, with something which has not yet been mentioned, namely, the question of party political broadcasts. In the past it has always been the case that, at a time of crisis, the Prime Minister broadcasts to the nation. He broadcasts as Prime Minister, and the question of a party political broadcast does not enter into the consideration. That practice was completely reversed in the case of the series of broadcasts which took place a week ago.

Mr. Wigg: Nonsense.

Sir R. Grimston: The Prime Minister's broadcast to the nation was followed, next evening, by that of the Leader of the Opposition. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite are cheering, but it is more than likely that one of the results of that broadcast was the great swing to the support of the Government which has taken place. By

most people that broadcast is regarded as one of the most disgraceful ever made. But that is not the point we are talking about now.
My point is that one or two nights after those two broadcasts there was another party political broadcast, by the Foreign Secretary—

Mr. C. Pannell: I suppose that was brilliant.

Sir R. Grimston: It seemed to me that the proper balance had then been reached. The Prime Minister had broadcast to the nation as Prime Minister, and there had been two party political broadcasts. Not at bit of it; the B.B.C. then put on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, on the following night. I suggest that that departure from the usual precedent, which has been the practice of the B.B.C. throughout the whole war and since, was an indication of some bias against the Government.
I now turn to other matters. What is far more insidious than that direct example of bias is the slant which is sometimes given, because it is very much more difficult to deal with. I want to mention some correspondence that I have had with the B.B.C. concerning the broadcasts to the Armed Forces, which have been referred to by my hon. Friend. It had come to my knowledge that the excerpts of Press reports to the Forces had been very much biased against the Government. I wrote to the B.B.C. saying.
I should be glad if you would let me have a transcript of all the news bulletins broadcast to the Forces by the B.B.C. during the period of the crisis.
I wrote to Sir Ian Jacob, but he is away in Australia and the Head of the Secretariat wrote back in his absence, saying:
The news bulletins in the Light Programme are relayed by the British Forces Network in Germany during the evening. In other parts of the world the bulletins in the B.B.C.'s General Overseas Service are made available either by relay or by short wave reception for those serving in the Forces. The total number of bulletins and other news reports broadcast in these ways during the crisis is very large, and I am afraid that it would not be practicable to provide you with a transcript of all of them. If there is any particular broadcast in which you are interested, I shall be very glad to send you a transcript of it.
I do not complain about the statement that it would be difficult to supply all the transcripts—although I do not very


much like the word "practicable"; that cannot be true. I would agree that it might be asking for rather a lot. But somebody must go through all these broadcasts to the Forces and find out whether or not the slant and bias that we complain of, as summarised by my hon. Friend, is correct. This must be done by Members of Parliament, or by the Government—or by somebody or other.
I now want to give an illustration of the type of slant which seems to me to indicate a bias. I watched the television broadcast of the Lord Mayor's Mansion House dinner. I have been told by a number of my friends who were at the dinner, and I have heard from other people as well, that when the Prime Minister sat down at the conclusion of his speech he received an ovation.

Mr. Wigg: Of course.

Sir R. Grimston: I am very glad that the hon. Member is helping me to make my case.
That was not the impression created by the way in which the B.B.C. faded out that applause. It was most marked on the television broadcast. I am told that it was cut out on the sound broadcast, and that the announcer then came on and said there would be a seven-minute interval before the next programme, which would be used for playing records. That indicated that there was absolutely no necessity to cut out the applause, except by deliberate intent.
Those are the sort of things which have been happening and which have brought us to make this protest about the insidious way in which this bias against the Government has been put over. I do not think that it has been going on at the top levels; it has obviously been going on lower down. But this is a serious charge against a State monopoly which is supposed to be impartial; and an inquiry should be put on foot to go into all these questions, and, if necessary, take evidence so as to establish either that we are right in what we say or that we are wrong. At least that should be done, both in fairness to the Government and to the B.B.C.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. George Wigg: Up to hearing the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) I had thought that this

was a serious debate. I suppose the hon. Member must be taken seriously, because there must be a majority of people in his constituency who voted for him—though goodness knows why. The only thing I can imagine is that he goes round his constituency and, instead of making political speeches, puts on the kind of performance to which we have just listened.
The hon. Member has been a Member of this House for years, but he does not even understand the procedure whereby political broadcasts are arranged. He imagines that they are doled out, presumably on a coupon basis, by the Director-General of the B.B.C. He does not understand that there has been an agreement between the political parties that any political party, at any time, can arrange with the B.B.C. to make a broadcast. I beg leave to doubt that he really thinks that the broadcast made by the Leader of the Opposition was disgraceful. What he probably thinks is that it was effective.
Another thing that he does not understand is that there is a world of difference between the Prime Minister broadcasting as the Prime Minister and a vain, inglorious creature, abusing his position to get possession of the microphone and to broadcast on all wavelengths, and also to use Eurovision, to bolster up a weakening and a party case.
Speaking personally, I have no complaint. The Prime Minister can broadcast every night in the week, the Foreign Secretary can broadcast every afternoon and hon. Members opposite can have all the rest of the time on the one condition that they announce their label. What I object to are the insidious broadcasts which are put over as being authoritative and to the poor listener being led to believe that what he is listening to is a very objective, learned dissertation, whereas, in fact, it is nothing but Tory propaganda.
I happened to be in a rather unusual position during the course of the—

Mr. C. Pannell: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, I should like to point out that, of course, the briefs are prepared in the same place.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend prompts me to say what I was going to say about it. He is absolutely right, of course, in


pointing out that the Government's timetable has gone a little wrong or that the Conservative Central Office has gone a little wrong.
What happened was that they looked round the benches and saw a young man who had a good record in dock briefs, in getting a man off with 14 days instead of 28—the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson). They supplied him with a brief and hoped that he would come to the House between 10 and 10.15 p.m. and speak for 15 minutes and that the Minister would speak for another 15 minutes in reply with the result that the screw would then be put on the B.B.C. which would make it a little safer for the Tory Party. Unfortunately, the business has not worked out that way. I have now 2¼ hours in which to outline my case, and I propose to do it.
The first interesting point made by the hon. Member for Epsom was when he and his hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) thought they had scored a major point—subversion—because I wanted the troops to listen to the overseas broadcast. It just happens that on the day when the Israeli attack was made, under cover of British troops, I was just north of Cyprus. I had sailed that morning from Izmit, after a trip round the Middle East, and, therefore. I can vouch for the fact that the troops had the opportunity of listening to the overseas programme. For the next few days until the boat got into Naples, I had to depend upon the overseas broadcast.
Naturally, half the troops were doing what I was doing; they were listening not only to the overseas programme, but to the short-wave stations which were pouring out broadcasts from all over the world. I shall never forget as long as I live listening to the broadcast of General Eisenhower about the acts of the British Government. I have never listened to a more angry man. I wished—and I hope that my words reach him—that he was English. I wished that he had been Prime Minister when he said that the principles of the United States and the principles which he required from her friends as well as her enemies were those of the rule of law based upon justice. I should like to think that every British lad wearing the Queen's uniform went into action wearing that motto as his cap-badge, because many millions of men

gave their lives in the First World War to establish the rule of right, and not the rule of might.
What the hon. Member for Westbury has not said in his childish way, as I understood, is that if the overseas programme does not tell the truth the listener merely turns the knob until he gets it from another source. We no longer control the air any more than we rule the waves. It is open to every country to put over its own form of propaganda. I should have thought it was a very dangerous game indeed, and it shows the weakness of the Government's case, for the Conservative Central Office to brief a Tory Member to come here and make a special plea in order that the overseas programme of the B.B.C. shall turn out Tory propaganda and nothing else, because that is what he has said tonight.
I am not one of those who go into raptures about the B.B.C. It always strikes me as being a "pansy" kind of organisation that really does not understand the workings of democracy. Indeed, I have said in this House on previous occasions that when the epitaph of democracy comes to be written it will consist of the letters "B.B.C." Democracy cannot flourish unless it has information. The basis of democracy is not the putting of a cross on a piece of paper every five years. Democracy means that every citizen in the country is associating himself or herself positively with the work of the body politic. Let hon. Members go back and read the Putney debates. If we look at the great moments in our history over the last three hundred years, we find that they have always been preceded by moments of discussion, often violent discussion, and from that has proceeded the synthesis which makes democratic action possible.
Hon. Members opposite rather pat themselves on the back, I gather, as a result of the Gallup poll this morning. Good luck to them. Let them count all the blessings they can. But let them mark this. On the morrow of Munich, we had exactly the same shift of opinion as is happening now, and for precisely the same reasons. Informed opinion in this country, opinion that was tied up with the expression of moral values, moved to the Left, and there was a movement the other way of people who had to rely on the


headlines in the Press for such information as they can now glean from organs like the B.B.C. But inevitably the discussion went on, and what happened in Munich produced 1945. Hon. Members opposite will find that the actions of the last fortnight—in a democracy retribution has to come—will result in their being swept from office in the same way as they were swept from office in 1945.
I think it is basely ungrateful for hon. Gentlemen opposite to come to the House and complain about the B.B.C., because the B.B.C. has served them well. The hon. Member for Westbury was a little more artful. He is not such a "mug" as the hon. Member for Epsom. He carefully pointed out to us that it was not due to the people at the top of the B.B.C. but to some creatures down below. The hon. Gentleman is aware, of course, that it is a little dangerous to be too sweeping about the personnel of the B.B.C., particularly those at the top, because, after all, they were appointed by right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Let us start off with the Director-General himself. He is General Sir Ian Jacob. Read his writings and look at his close association with the present Minister of Defence. He was military adviser to the Ministry of Defence, and I have no doubt that the present Minister of Defence used all the influence he could with the Prime Minister to get General Jacob appointed. To me, General Jacob is a Tory "stooge." He was, he is and always will be that. Now we turn to the Chairman, a Foreign Office "deadbeat," Sir Alexander Cadogan. When he at last woke up from his sleep, the Government thought that he had to have a job, so they pushed him in as Chairman of the B.B.C. As I say, it is basely ungrateful for hon. Gentlemen opposite to come here and denounce the B.B.C.
Consider what used to happen when we were the Government and we had to rely upon the B.B.C.'s good will for at least presenting our case. I remember going to see an official of the B.B.C. after a series of what I thought were particularly unfunny jokes aimed at my right hon. Friends who were then members of the Government. "Oh," I was told, "you do not understand. One always finds that power is satirised; it is one of the functions of an organisation like the B.B.C.

to satirise the concentrations of power. You have not had a classical education, but if you were to go back to the Greeks you would find they did this; they took their great public figures and exposed them as objects of fun, and there was thereby a curbing of power."
I did not believe all this, but I made a note of it. Has any hon. Member heard any political jokes on the B.B.C. in recent times? If so, the number of them may be counted on the fingers of one hand. Stuck up in my flat I have all manner of scripts for which I have sent, and cuttings I have made, with regard to events when we were in Government. What a different tale.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. I happened to be in the Eastern Mediterranean, as I said. A fortnight ago, I was in Egypt and I had a chance to make some direct observations on some of the comments of hon. Gentlemen. I had to rely upon the short-wave service, and I had to rely for a while on foreign newspapers for my news. I came back to England just in time to listen to a broadcast which had already been sent out on the Friday night a week ago. I wanted to know what had happened and, like the hon. Member for Hendon, North I went to a friend's house and turned on the radio to hear it.
I invite hon. Gentlemen to send for the script of that broadcast. I think it is called "Topic for Tonight", or some such name as that. There was a talk by a Middle East expert, so we were told. He was put on to give an account of the impact of our policy in the Middle East. I have never in my life listened to such balderdash. And the two subsequent broadcasts were of the same quality.
Let us probe a little deeper and examine the facts more closely. While I was abroad, I learned details of the operation which the Israelis had conducted, how they had conducted it, how it had gone, and from what points the attack was made. Last Thursday night I made a speech in the House and I drew attention to the fact that the attack was made from Eilat. At Eilat is an armed regiment of the British Army, the 10th Hussars. In other words, the main Israeli drive was covered—its lines of communication were covered—by the 10th Hussars.
I cannot find any reference whatever in the programmes of the B.B.C. to the manner in which that attack was carried out, or any details of it. There has been no mention of Eilat at all. Indeed, I will go so far as to say that even up to this moment I do not believe that there has been any mention at all on the B.B.C. of the point at which the Israeli attack was made. I will go further: not only has there been a censorship at the B.B.C., either directed by or at the instigation of the Government, but something perilously like it has happened to the British Press. With the help of a friend, I have made an examination of every map showing details of the attack upon the Sinai Desert which has been published in the British Press.
Let me ask hon. Gentlemen to go to the Library and look at the map published in the Daily Telegraph. There was a description of the operation by General Martin, which was wildly inaccurate—miles out. It is more than a coincidence, I think, when there is a blackout in the Press and a blackout in the B.B.C. as well.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: A blackout in the Daily Herald at the same time?

Mr. Wigg: A blackout in the Daily Herald as well. I say that because the news was never made available.
I am not here making a party point, for this reason. I happen to hold a view, as I said last Thursday, that this country has suffered a political and military defeat of the first magnitude. If hon. Gentlemen doubt it, let them read today's issue of the New York Times, where it is said that in international affairs two things matter-wisdom and success. As far as America is concerned, it is finished; if they are not in at the take-off, they are not in at the trip.
Unless these facts are got across to the British people, and unless the discussion which has started in the last fortnight goes on, we shall sink to the level of—I will mention it—to the level of, I say, France. There is nothing lower than France, our gallant ally. Indeed, it is an American opinion, as has been said to me, that one of the things which upsets Americans is that in ten days we managed to reduce ourselves to the level of the French.
It is plain beyond any shadow of doubt that a major instrument of national

policy, the Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement—if hon. Gentlement want to refer to it, it is Cmd. 7894—the Agreement whereby this country and other countries were given American aid for military purposes, has been broken. There is no doubt at all that it has been broken. I see the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) frowns and wonders what this has to do with the subject of debate.

Mr. Nabarro: I could not catch the last word that the hon. Member used in his last two sentences. We could not hear it over here. That is why I frowned.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry; I was trying to account for the puzzled look or his face, and I am always anxious to help. I was referring to the fact that the Mutual Defence Assistance Agreement, Cmd. 7894, had, in fact, been broken.

Mr. Nabarro: Broken?

Mr. Wigg: Yes, broken. Here was a piece of information which was known to every European country. I am not asking for any publicity for anything I say.
I came back from abroad, and on the Saturday morning I phoned the Minister of Defence and asked him whether he would disclose to the House what military equipment which had been supplied by the United States for N.A.T.O. had been used in the Middle East. He gave me, on this matter, the misleading reply which he repeated today. He said that he did not know. On the same morning, Saturday a week ago, the United States Government issued a statement from their Embassy drawing the attention of both British and French Governments to the fact that this—

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. I apologise for intervening. As I understand the position, the subject of this Adjournment debate is the partiality or otherwise of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Might I inquire what possible relevance there is to that subject in what the hon. Gentleman is saying?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is mistaken. The Question before the House is, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. Are we, then, entitled to discuss any and every aspect of the presentation of news?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Hon. Gentlemen are free to discuss anything that comes within the rules of order on the Adjournment.

Mr. Wigg: I thought, from the puzzled look on the face of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, that he did not quite understand. It appears that he is not quite as up to date in his knowledge of the rules of order as he might be. This debate started on the Motion for the Adjournment. There is plenty of time. I am in order, I believe, as long as I do not raise any question which requires legislation. I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are two hours open to us yet.
I was discussing a very important point indeed, the fact that the American Government, a week ago last Saturday, drew the attention of the British and French Governments to the fact that equipment which had been supplied for Mutual Aid must not be used for any other purpose than the purpose for which it was taken. There was no reference on the B.B.C. at all to that announcement. I hoped that I would get a chance to speak tonight, even if the debate lasted for only half an hour, so I armed myself with a copy of the Mutual Defence Agreement. It contains this sentence:
Neither contracting Government without the prior consent of the other will devote assistance furnished to it by the other contracting Government to purposes other than those for which it was furnished.
This country stands in breach of that agreement. We are just an embezzler of equipment, because we have taken 515 Hunters and 100 Sea Hawks and have used them in defiance of that agreement, honourably undertaken, for purposes other than those for which they were supplied. I would not be surprised if the French Government have gone a little further. They have supplied the Israeli Government with a considerable number of Mystere 4s. All these were supplied under the Mutual Aid Agreement. I would not be surprised if the French Government sold them to the Israeli Government.
None of these facts, which are known to every Government in Europe and

which are known in detail to the United States, never a single word of them, has been put across the B.B.C. There has been no objective approach at all to the events of the last fortnight. It has been Tory propaganda. That is why the hon. Member for Epsom comes here tonight. The Tories understand this and the Assistant Postmaster-General, who will reply to the debate, understands it as well. There is no better defence than attack. I know that, and so does the hon. Gentleman. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have guilty consciences. I do not suppose that they have fully taken the hon. Member for Epsom into their confidence or he would not have spoken in quite the way that he did. He has far too great an understanding for that.
Somebody at the Tory Central Office said, "We had better put up a smokescreen. Otherwise there might be an inquiry into General Jacob's and Sir Alexander Cadogan's administration of the B.B.C." So they have produced a selective brief. They have trotted out the hon. Member for Westbury to give the matter a light touch and come to the House of Commons and pretend that there has been a Socialist bias. Was there ever such tommy-rot?
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) paid tribute, and deservedly, to the courage and ability of Mr. Woodrow Wyatt. It was not so very long ago that I was questioning, without protest from the Government benches, the propriety of a broadcast by Mr. Woodrow Wyatt. I got an answer, in writing, from the Postmaster-General which, in the careful way these letters are drafted, made it abundantly clear that I had caught Mar. Woodrow Wyatt and his friends out in a piece of Right-wing propaganda. If any Government supporter would like copies of the correspondence the Assistant-Postmaster General has my permission to supply hon. Gentlemen with copies of the correspondence which passed between me and the Postmaster-General.

Mr. C. Pannell: I think I know what my hon. Friend is referring to. When Mr. Woodrow Wyatt intervened in the elections in my trade union, the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and the Communist conspiracy, hon. Members on Government benches gave him all the


medals under the sun. Broadly speaking, I am grateful to him for unmasking Communism, but it is rather curious how selective Government supporters are in their enthusiasm over Mr. Woodrow Wyatt.

Mr. Wigg: I am glad that my hon. Friend remembers that occasion. We had no protest from the Tory Party at all then. I can think of other occasions when protests have been made from this side of the House without any backing from hon. Members opposite.
The truth is that right hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand the meaning of democracy. They are not a democratic party. The nearest and best description I can give that party is that it is a political conspiracy. What they exist for is, by hook or by crook, to persuade or delude the majority of their fellow countrymen to vote for them on a special issue in order to give them another five years of power. It is a dangerous game and this country has paid a very heavy price for it.
On this occasion I am not thinking in terms of whether the Conservative Party or the Labour Party gets in at the next Election. If hon. Members opposite-there are a few—are really concerned about the workings of democracy and believe it to be a civilised way of life and a better way of life than anyone else has yet contrived, they will realise that it is absolutely vital that on all occasions the truth shall be told. Can hon. Members opposite truly say that that has been the case?

Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member should not arrogate to himself the sole belief that truth should prevail. That is accepted on both sides of the House and as sincerely on this side as on his side.

Mr. Wigg: Not for a moment. I acknowledge my thinking on this point, I do not claim to be original. I left school at the age of 14—

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member is not the only one.

Mr. Wigg: I know, but some hon. Members show it more obviously than I do. They show it in their appearance, their behaviour and manner.
I have always realised the disadvantage from which I suffer. Therefore, in

later life I have tried to make up for it and have turned to men of genius who, in their thoughts and writings, have given expression to the democratic way of life and the prerequisites for its continuation. We have no right to expect that here in Britain democracy will continue automatically. It is something which has to be watched; it has to be prized and it has to be safeguarded by us all.
Before hon. Members opposite make complaints about the slanting of the news which, after all, is another way of saying that the B.B.C. has been telling half the truth—half-truths carefully worked out to their disadvantage—they should ask themselves whether the representatives of their party who have stood at the Dispatch Box have told the truth and are now telling the truth.
If hon. Members opposite think that all the truth has been told and that there has been a genuine effort on the part of the Government to reveal to the House and the country all the facts of the present situation, I ask them to buy short-wave sets and listen to foreign broadcasts, or to read reports in foreign newspapers. They should read the American Press, then they will quickly realise the enormous gap which exists between the consensus of opinion in this country and the truth.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: I wonder whether the hon. Member has seen what Mrs. Roosevelt has been saying in America?

Mr. Wigg: Of course I have seen what Mrs. Roosevelt said, that the British Government are right. The hon. Member has every right to yell that from the house tops. If he wishes, next time I speak in my constituency I will say that he got up in the House of Commons and said what Mrs. Roosevelt said.
But if it is valid to tell the country what Mrs. Roosevelt said, then the hon. Gentleman ought to go to his constituency and tell them what a Right-wing newspaper said last weekend—that we went into the Canal to explode Nasser and to consolidate the Canal. In fact, what we have done is to consolidate Nasser and explode the Canal. I am: quite willing to do a deal with the hon. Member; let him go to his constituency and repeat that and I will repeat in my constituency what Mrs. Roosevelt said.
This shows the depth of the hon. Member's moral corruption. I want the truth. I have not the slightest objection to controversy; indeed, I welcome it. Let the B.B.C. be as controversial as it likes. That is the difference between hon. Members opposite and myself; they do not want the B.B.C. to be controversial. What they want is the unanimity of the graveyard. They want us all the same.

Mr. Osborne: They want the hon. Member to sit down.

Mr. Wigg: I know, but I am not going to. Provided that I keep in order, I am not going to sit down. I will certainly let the right hon. Member for Kidderminster—I am sorry, the hon. Member for Kidderminster; he will never be a right hon. Gentleman; his party will see to that. I will let the hon. Member who, because he left school at 14, will never get power on the Tory benches, have his chance to speak.

Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has not power on his side, either.

Mr. Wigg: I know that.

Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member for Dudley is sneering at my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) for not having power on this side of the House because he left school at 14. I am reminding the hon. Member for Dudley that, despite his long-winded speeches, he has not power, either.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. This part of the debate is certainly getting out of order.

Mr. Wigg: I was certainly not sneering at the hon. Member for Kidderminster. I might congratulate the country on its escape—and I could do that—but I certainly will not sneer. I am merely saying that despite all the hon. Member's efforts, he has got as far as he will go. So have I—and as far as I want to go. I am quite happy, and probably he is happy, too.

Mr. Osborne: He has not been able to speak.

Mr. Wigg: I am all for giving the hon. Member for Kidderminster the chance to make a speech and I was only joking when I said that I would go on for several

hours. But this is too good an opportunity to miss, an opportunity to give those hon. Members of the Conservative Party who care to stay and listen an elementary lesson, which is seriously meant, in the functioning of democracy.
May I pay a tribute to the hon. Member for Kidderminster? Occasionally I have listened to him in the programme "Any Questions?". Hon. Members opposite do not complain because he does more broadcasting than anybody else—and I will accept the fact that it is quite gratuitous. He always speaks with vigour and puts his own party point of view, and as long as he is labelled "The honourable Member for Kidderminster" he has my full support for broadcasting 24 hours a day for 365 days in the year—because I do not have to listen to him if I do not wish to do so. If I like, I always have the remedy of switching off.

Mr. Osborne: He wants to speak tonight.

Mr. Wigg: What I object to about the B.B.C. is the broadcast of a man like Kirkbride, a week ago last Friday. It was put on as if he were giving an objective and unbiased account and yet he gave an account which was as biased and just as pro-Government as the hon. Member for Kidderminster.

Mr. Osborne: Like Tennyson's brook, the hon. Member for Dudley goes on for ever.

Mr. Wigg: I want to see a vigorous and controversial B.B.C.—a B.B.C. which expresses every single point of view. There is the question of religious broadcasts. Here is a very fruitful subject. Do minority religious points of view find expression? Do the unorthodox have an opportunity to make their views known. After all, the unorthodox, the heterodox, of today are the orthodox of tomorrow.
In every aspect of our national life, the B.B.C. shows the hallmark of the reactionary Tory—and I want to define that. A Tory is a person who thinks—who feels, rather, because he does not think—that power should be where power seems to be. He is always biased towards the maintenance of the status quo. That is why Toryism, left to itself and unprodded by movements of the Left, inevitably becomes stagnant and decadent and, of course, ultimately, stinks.
That is the kind of instrument of public instruction that hon. Gentlemen opposite want. Why do they want it? They want it because, in the last analysis, what are politics about? Politics decide who gets what. Hon. Gentlemen opposite come from the comfortable sections of society, or, if they have left school at 14, they have got to the comfortable sections of society, and what they want to do is to organise society here and throughout the world in such a way that life shall be comfortable for them and for their kind.
That is not the way of progress. There was a time, of course, when the Pax Britannica really meant something; when, perhaps, we really did rule the waves—I do not know how long ago, but it is way back now. When we really ran the show the ruling classes here were in a position to impose their will not only in Britain but throughout the world, and what hon. Members opposite have not yet realised is that that day has gone. The days when they could throw their weight about have gone, and they are never coming back.
To do hon. Members opposite justice—and here I want to be absurdly generous—after 1945 it seemed that, under the inspiration of the present Leader of the House, they were finding themselves in better ways; that they had come to realise that the earth had tilted, and that no longer could the Tory Party hope to gain political power in Britain whilst expounding the kind of views which had served in the period between the two wars. So the present Leader of the House produced a few pamphlets, held a few week-end schools and paid lip service to progress.
As a result, the party opposite managed—because of two Elections, and the fact that we got caught up in the Korean War in defending the principle of the rule of law, which the present Government have now sabotaged—to achieve power. Of course, the majority was much smaller than the Tories had thought of, or hoped for. For a while, therefore, they had to behave themselves, but, as the majority got a little bigger so the cloven hoof began to show in a number of Measures.
I shall not bore hon. Gentlemen by going over the political and legislative misdeeds of the Government in the last few years. I am very well aware that I must not deal with any matter requiring

legislation, I am not, at the moment, advocating that the Government's Measures should be repealed. That will happen in due course, but tonight I am not drawing attention to Measures of repeal.
I want to move to the relations of Britain with the outside world. When the Labour Government were in power they put through—to their great credit, because they have no militarist tradition—a vast armaments programme. That action split this party, because it was against all the tradition of this party. It is a weakness that my hon. Friends from the depths of their hearts pay tribute to the principle of law, but when it comes to spending money on it that is sometimes a different story. But what did the party opposite do: they adhered to the same principle—again, lip-service.
I remember a memorable speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), following on one of the most dishonest Amendments ever put on the Order Paper—an Amendment put down in February, 1951, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). He put it down, of course, not because he was concerned with Britain. With what was he concerned? He was concerned, again, by hook or by crook, with getting the Tory Party back into office. That is one of the ways in which it could be done.
I mention this because tonight and last night we heard protests about the speech—the disgraceful speech as it was described—broadcast by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when he urged hon. Members opposite, vainly, of course, with a few honourable exceptions, to put their country before their party. Could anything sound more indecent in the Tory Party's ears than that, because, of course, to them country and party are one. It was disgraceful, according to the hon. Gentleman who has now left the House, for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to make a plea to hon. Members opposite at a moment of great national peril to think of the future of their country. But, of course, it was a quite honourable undertaking for the right hon. Member for Woodford to put an Amendment on the Order Paper in order to try to split the ranks of the Labour Party and to get hon. Members on this side who are honourable


pacifists in their convictions and try to stick them on to his piece of political flypaper. Was there ever such humbug as we have listened to tonight out of the mouths of hon. Members opposite who have spoken? We are concerned about democracy; they are concerned about the Tory Party. They are concerned here with a smokescreen, with trying to present a picture to the country which suits them. What they find so desperately inconvenient is that the facts do not happen to suit their particular political bill. So what do they do?

Mr. C. Pannell: Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me something. I have spoken in the debate, and I had anticipated that as a matter of courtesy I would hear the hon. Gentleman's speech. But I have to make some domestic arrangements and should like to know whether it was a threat or a promise that he intended to speak until 10.30?

Mr. Wigg: It would be wrong to say that it was either a threat or a promise. We are on the Adjournment of the House, and the hon. Member for Epsom came down, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West has himself said, with a carefully prepared brief—prepared not by himself but by the Conservative Central Office—to do a little bit to work his passage and justify his existence in this House, and he was going to do it in a quarter of an hour. The rules of the House are such that on the Adjournment it is open to any hon. Member to speak.

Mr. Pannell: I am not complaining.

Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. It happens to be that this is one of the rare occasions on which I have caught the Speaker's eye. I have caught his eye tonight because I thought that no one else on this side of the House wanted to speak. There are a number of points which I think need to be made. I have made one or two of them, but I want to move on, because, as my hon. Friend knows, I am interested in the subject of defence. I want to lose no opportunity here of coming back to my central theme—the need of an educated democracy in which representatives of all shades of opinion, of all parties, may go to the microphone and bash each other's heads off so that the man in the street can make up his mind. My complaint

against that miserable crowd opposite is that they do everything in their power to stop that.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but I missed his introductory sentences and I am not sure how far he has gone. Would he deal with an important point? There are two or three million pacifists in this country, and the number is rapidly increasing. The B.B.C. never puts over the Christian-pacifist case against the use of arms.

Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I do not want to offend any person's religious feeling, but I have drawn attention to the fact that those who hold religious beliefs deeply and sincerely and who happen to hold minority views never find expression. It is a fact that an increasing number of men and women in this country are driven to the pacifist point of view. Hon. Members know that my life's work has been in a different field. I profoundly respect the pacifist point of view, and in the last fortnight I have given very serious thought indeed to what, after all, is the alternative to the Christian-pacifist point of view.
I say in all sincerity that well balanced, serious and intelligent discussions between pacifists and non-pacifists ought to be part of a B.B.C. that is concerned with the education of public opinion. I hold the view that the British Broadcasting Corporation, like any political party that is seriously and honestly concerned with democracy, will recognise that its prime function is not the gaining of votes. Any person who calls himself a democrat and whose practice of democracy begins only at election time does not know the meaning of the words.
It is an educational process which goes on all the time. It concerns the young and the old. The casting of the vote is the least important part of it. Democracy is a tapestry of great richness. It has got many threads, and I hold that heterodox views must find expression through this great instrument for the influencing of men's minds.
The B.B.C.'s motto says:
Nation shall speak peace unto nation.
The present B.B.C. is a corruption of what it could become if there were honesty of purpose behind it. It would


be wrong of me to go over all the ground again, but I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) will agree when I say that when an hon. Member opposite complains of Left-wing bias in the B.B.C., an organisation which is directed and controlled by such men as Lieut.-General Sir Ian Jacob and Sir Alexander Cadogan, it is difficult to find words; the rules of the House prevent me from saying what I really think. I hope, however, that I have made it clear that I think that such action is contemptible, because it strikes at the very basis of what is left of our decent way of life. I hope I have satisfied my hon. Friend on that point.
I now want to turn to another and very important point which never finds any ventilation. This country is spending £1,500,000 on defence, 9 per cent. of its national income. We are in economic difficulties, and we have been. Our balance of payments all the time has been dragged at and cut into by this vast defence bill and the necessity for overseas expenditure.
What effort has the B.B.C. made, either this year or in any year, to have informed discussions about the reality of our defence expenditure? On 26th July—I do not need the Conservative Central Office to make out a brief for me, these dates are in our minds and we shall never forget them—we had the Prime Minister coming to this House on Friday, 27th July, after Nasser's seizure of the Canal on the 26th—and threatening to take strong action. To their shame, there were hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who cheered him. I said then, and I say again now, that both made me sick; because they did not understand the weak position of this country both then and now.
I defy any single one of the hon. Gentlemen opposite to deny the accuracy of what I say. They know in their hearts of hearts that if they were proposing to attempt to undertake the criminal action which they have been undertaking, the time to do so was during August Bank Holiday week-end. That was the only time at which it made military and political sense. Why did not they do it? Because they had no transport aircraft—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. It is true that we are on the Adjournment, but I find it difficult to associate what he has said with the Minister's responsibility.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, we are on the Adjournment, and if we accept the principle of collective responsibility, the Assistant Postmaster-General is as much responsible as the Prime Minister himself. No Minister can escape responsibility for having spent £6,000 million on defence. They left this country weak and unprepared.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is a constitutional responsibility, but not a Ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Wigg: With respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am surprised—I say this with great respect—that on an issue of this kind I should be considered out of order. I would draw your attention to the fact that when this House was recalled on 12th September I spoke on the Adjournment on the question of the preparations which had been made and the recall of the reservists. If I was in order on that occasion, inevitably I must be in order now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is out of order, because we are on the Adjournment. What I find a little difficult, because the Assistant Postmaster-General is to reply, is to reconcile what the hon. Gentleman is saying with the Minister's responsibility.

Mr. Wigg: Naturally, I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. But that would be a matter for the Minister himself. He can reply or not as he wishes. But providing that I am in order in raising the matter on the Adjournment, the question whether or not the Minister replies is entirely beside the point. If your Ruling is that an hon. Member can only raise a matter on which the Minister is to reply, then our discussions on every subject will be slightly circumscribed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not ruling that, but it has been a practice of the House, if an hon. Member raises other issues, to inform the other Ministers.

Mr. Wigg: On that point I am willing to meet your convenience, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. There is a representative of the Patronage Secretary sitting on the Government Front Bench, and if you feel that the appropriate Minister should be present, it is up to the Patronage Secretary to send for that Minister. I invite the hon. Gentleman to send for the Minister of Defence if he feels that the right hon. Gentleman should be present.
I was relating the unpreparedness of this country in the field of defence to the fact that there is an ignorance of the problems involved—an ignorance which certainly exists in this House—and I drew attention to that fact in a previous debate, I think on 30th July. It is an ignorance for which hon. Members of this House have a responsibility. The point I am making is that the Assistant Postmaster-General should impress upon the B.B.C., with all the vigour at his command, the necessity for informed controversy in great public affairs. There should be discussion. This is not a subject that is taboo.
Nine per cent. of our national income—£6,000 million since the present Administration took office—has been spent, and on 1st August we had two tank landing ships. No paper in the country, or the B.B.C., revealed the fact that on August Bank Holiday we had two tank landing ships after an expenditure of 9 per cent. of our national income.
I do not want to weary the House, but I should like to improve the reading of hon. Members opposite. I am a great student. I study very carefully the writings of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should turn to the fifth volume of the right hon. Gentleman's "History of the Second World War—Closing The Ring." There is there a detailed account of the Anzio operation carried out on a two-divisional basis. The right hon. Gentleman tells how many tank landing ships we needed to undertake the operation—88; and we had two. Neither the B.B.C. nor the Press informed the country.
The public were left to believe that out of the Government's great strength and great preparations this armada set sail from Cyprus to knock Colonel Nasser off his perch. What of the truth? The hon. Gentleman complained about the truth

not being told. I complain, too. I complain that the public were not told of the shortage of tank landing ships and transport aircraft. They were not told that; they were led to believe that here was great strength.
I did not have time the other night to tell the House; fortunately I have more time tonight. It was not until 6th September, until five weeks had gone by, after an expenditure which is so vast that its very size creates problems, that the Government were ready to move.

Mr. Hale: My hon. Friend referred to the writings of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). He need not go back so far as the Second World War—

Mr. Osborne: On a point of order. The Motion before the House refers to the political balance of the B.B.C.—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Motion before the House, as I pointed out earlier, is "That this House do now adjourn." What I have pointed out to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is that it is the customary practice when matters other than the one under discussion are to be raised that notice should be given to the responsible Minister.

Mr. Osborne: Is not it customary in this House that there should be a give-and-take and fair shares of the time allotted to the House? As there are hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, some of whom have been waiting without having a meal this evening so that they may take part in the debate, is it not unreasonable that we should have a senseless filibuster like this taking up the time?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a matter for me to decide.

Mr. Nabarro: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you referred a moment ago to notice being given. Can you guide me and tell me what form the notice should take when an hon. Member deliberately switches the subject from that on which the debate was initiated, namely, the political balance of the B.B.C., to defence considerations and the much wider issue of the position in the Middle East?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already said that the Motion before us has nothing to do with the B.B.C. The Motion


is "That this House do now adjourn". Therefore, the hon. Member for Dudley is in order, but I have pointed out that it is the practice of the House when a Member wishes to raise other matters, that he should give notice to the Ministers responsible for them.

Mr. Nabarro: I am asking you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on a point of order, what form the notice to which you have referred should take. I have not heard any notice given. I am inquiring now whether that notice should be given in written form or in oral form, and when it should have been given?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: So far as I know, there is no particular form for it.

Mr. Nabarro: Might I inquire, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when and where notice was given to switch the subject.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is no switching of the subject. The subject is whether the House shall now adjourn.

Mr. Wigg: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It almost seems necessary that the B.B.C. should give broadcasts about the procedure and rules of order of the House of Commons. They would be of great use to the hon. Member for Kidderminster, because he obviously does not understand the rules, and also to the hon. Member for Louth, who has been in the House for ten years.
I submit, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I am perfectly in order and that there are plenty of precedents for going from one subject to another on the Adjournment. I am the first to obey your Rulings, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in the letter and the spirit. It is my submission that I am keeping very close to the subject which has been raised. The subject raised is—

Mr. Osborne: But the hon. Member is not—

Mr. Wigg: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to finish my point. I am keeping very close to the subject.
The hon. Member for Epsom came here with, as he has admitted, a carefully prepared speech. He had the impudence to make allegations based upon examples which he had not himself heard, and he did it in a sly sort of way hoping to gat through it in a quarter

of an hour. Then we heard his hon. Friends, who had no doubt been given ample notice of these examples, if not by the hon. Member for Epsom, then by the person in the Conservative Central Office who prepared the brief. From now on we shall find pressure—not much pressure would be required; just enough—being put on the B.B.C. to make it even more Right-wing than it is at present.

Mr. Osborne: Mr. Osborne rose—

Mr. Wigg: I will give way in a moment.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Member for Louth, who does not even know the subject we are discussing, interrupted me on a point of order when my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) had given way for me. Then when I wait for my hon. Friend to finish a sentence the hon. Member for Louth desires my hon. Firend to give way to him before he resumes giving way to me. There must be some end to this. Might I take it that my hon. Friend is now giving way to me? I would point out to him that the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price), in writing of the history of the third world war, contributed—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Nobody knows better than the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) what the object of an intervention is. He is using an intervention for the purpose of making a speech.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West referred—I am not sure whether it was a slip of the tongue—to a history of the third world war. Is he referring to the history of the operations of the last fortnight?

Mr. Hale: I certainly am. The hon. Member contributed two columns to the front page of that very great organ of Sabbatarian information, the Sunday Dispatch, last Sunday—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: This is really a misuse of an intervention.

Mr. Wigg: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for his help. I remember the article. I think it is very appropriate that it should be referred to at this point. It is true that the hon. Member for Epsom allowed himself, demeaned


himself, to support the blatant, wicked propaganda on the front page of the Sunday Dispatch. I have no objection whatever to the hon. Member beating the Soviet Union if he wants to, but he must remember that one cannot fool all the people all the time. There are supporters of the Conservative Party in Epsom who will realise that the Government started by saying that their actions in the Middle East were concerned with the safety of British subjects in Egypt; subsequently—perhaps it is not unfair to say that it happened at the same time—they discovered that it was necessary to take action to protect the Canal; later they discovered reasons for their action in support of the United Nations; and last weekend we were told that a great Red plot had been discovered.

Mr. Osborne: Mr. Osborne rose—

Mr. Wigg: I will not give way.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) must resume his seat if the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) does not give way,

Mr. Wigg: I am quite willing to give way to the hon. Member for Louth—

Mr. Osborne: Thank you.

Mr. Wigg: —but not at the moment. He must wait.
I am now referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Epsom. He allowed himself to be used, without any knowledge of the facts, to support the view that the reason why the Government had acted was the existence of a Red plot. Here again, I can give evidence at first hand. Hon. Members opposite by this time really should have learnt that in their propaganda nonsense they should never put out a spate of half-truths which can be checked. Last week, the right hon. Member—I am now using the customs and courtesies of the House in so describing him—the President of the Board of Trade told the House that a vast amount of Red arms had been discovered in Egypt. What are the facts? The figures are almost identical with the list of arms which had appeared in The Times of 30th October.
Let me go further. I am astonished; hon. Members opposite really must be slipping, because it is the easiest thing

in the world to establish the amount of equipment that has gone into Egypt from the Soviet Union in the last few months.

Mr. Osborne: Mr. Osborne rose—

Mr. John Rankin: Pure obstruction.

Mr. Wigg: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Epsom has not understood this. Apparently the hon. Member, who gives some signs of intelligence, has never heard of such a thing as Lloyd's List. It is quite easy for any hon. Member opposite who really wants to build up a case about the intervention of the Soviet Union in Egypt to consult Lloyd's List and establish what Soviet ships have been into Egyptian ports in the last six months, or the last year, or during any period. I will help him in this. A fortnight ago last Friday, on the eve of this great Red plot, there was one ex-Liberty ship bearing the flag of the Soviet Union in Alexandria harbour, and the previous one had been there three weeks before.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Wigg: I am very much obliged to those hon. Members who have come in and so thwarted the totalitarian methods of the hon. Member for Louth. This is another example of Tory democracy. We have the attack, and then they try to suppress the reply. I very much hope that the B.B.C. will make a note of this and give special mention to the hon. Member for Louth, who had recourse to an attempt to count the House out on an occasion when one of his hon. Friends began a carefully planned attack, hoping to launch it in half an hour when nobody was present, but was thwarted by the matter being fully ventilated. I should have had no objection if the hon. Member for Louth had succeeded. He wants a meal, and so do I, but it is also very important indeed that the occasion of the Adjournment of the House should be used to the utmost to ventilate and expose some of the Tory machinations. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has gone.

Mr. Rankin: He is coming back.

Mr. Wigg: He was good enough to remind me that the hon. Member for Epsom had contributed last week in the Sunday Dispatch to an attempt—

Mr. Rawlinson: I have never contributed to the Sunday Dispatch, and I have not read the Sunday Dispatch.

Mr. Osborne: Wrong again.

Mr. Wigg: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I was taking up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West.

Mr. Osborne: Both wrong.

Mr. Wigg: If it was not the hon. Member for Epsom it was the same pea in the same pod, the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price). The fact is that Conservative Members of Parliament, running out of alibis, had to fall back on the corny old line they used between the wars. So far as one knows, one of the bills of lading for this vast quantity of Russian goods which have been supplied was probably signed by Zinoviev, or Zinoviev signed bills of lading for tins of pressed snow, because sooner or later the Russians and their equipment must have snow, particularly as the weather gets colder.

Mr. Osborne: Is that what the Hungarians think? The hon. Member has been on his feet for 80 minutes. My hon. Friends have been here without a meal to take part in a serious discussion. All we are having is filibustering. The hon. Member is sneering about what we think about the Russians. He should remember what the Hungarians are thinking about the Russians today.

Mr. Wigg: Hon. Members will again notice that the same hon. Member who wanted to count out the House now wants to use the agony of the Hungarian people for a party end. I spurn that and treat it with the contempt it deserves. This is a desperately serious matter. It wounds and affects the hearts of all of us for the hon. Member to mention the agony of the Hungarians to make a party point. Let him go outside and be ashamed of himself.
Mr. Speaker, I was mentioning snow on Russian boots and inviting the attention of hon. Members opposite, including the hon. Member for Louth, to the fact that if they wished to make progress with

their stories about Russian equipment, they should do something better than read accounts in The Times and then a short time after those accounts have been published think of them something new. They are not new. There are also hon. Members on this side of the House who read The Times, and we recollected as soon as we saw the figures that we had seen them before.
I invite the hon. Member for Louth to fill in a little time between now and when I have finished to read Lloyd's List and thereby do a great service to his party.

Mr. Osborne: That is more than the hon. Member is doing.

Mr. Wigg: He could really discover what the Russians have put into Egypt in the last six months and in the last year.

Mr. Osborne: It is not fair.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. I co not often ask for the protection of the Chair, but if the hon. Member for Louth must interject, would you, Mr. Speaker, please ask him to make it clearly enough for me to hear him?

Mr. Osborne: I will with pleasure. I merely stated that I thought it was fantastic and unfair, and I will say it again. My hon. Friends have been waiting without a meal to take part in what they thought would be a serious discussion. Here we have the typical folly of an hon. Member who on some occasions talks sense but who tonight seems to be completely bereft of his senses.

Mr. Rankin: Further to that point of order. The hon. Member for Louth has been saying that time and time again. Does that not come under the rule which bans tedious repetition?

Mr. Speaker: No point of order has been raised at all yet.

Mr. Wigg: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. I asked for your protection, Sir, and I trust that I shall get it.
The hon. Member for Louth interrupted me when I was saying that the latest propaganda, the last skin of the onion of excuses, as it were, can easily be checked. I was saying that in the interest of democracy it was useful for a political


party, when putting forward reasons for warlike actions, to see that they were reasons which would stand up to serious examination. So far, the only statements we have had from the Government have been lists of material which are almost identical with those published on 30th October.
What I was going on to say was that this fact could be decided quite easily by any hon. Member who took the trouble to look at Lloyd's List. Here, again, is a matter about which the B.B.C. might well have a discussion. In my judgment, the B.B.C. ought to discuss the reasons which prompted the Government to take action in Suez. Hon. Gentlemen opposite complained about slant. Why did they not plead with the B.B.C? Sir Ian Jacob would not listen to me, but he would listen to them.
Let the hon. Gentleman give us an assurance tonight that he will ask the B.B.C. to institute a series of discussions, taking one by one the various excuses which the Government have put forward. Let that be done, if hon. Members opposite like, by a panel of hon. Members opposite or by the Conservative Central Office. So long as the talks take place, and there is an opportunity for both points of view, that suits me.

Mr. Osborne: Hear, hear.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member for Louth has put himself out of court because he wanted to stop me from being heard. He wanted to stop his hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General from replying to the debate. That is a disgraceful act. He wanted the gag. I want to hear the Minister, but not for long.
There are one or two things to which I must call the attention of the House. When, earlier, I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Louth I was dealing with the point that this country was abysmally ignorant of the facts as, of course, is this House.

Mr. Osborne: The hon. Gentleman is speaking for himself now.

Mr. Wigg: I agree that I am profoundly ignorant. All I can say is that I am like the hon. Member for Louth, but that I recognise my ignorance and try to put it right.
The point I am dealing with is the question of defence. The whole country and the House are ignorant on this matter.

Mr. Hale: One could not have a more classic example of that fact than that after 2 hours and 20 minutes' discussion the hon. Member for Louth got to his feet and said that we were discussing something else. He did not know what the Question was.

Mr. Wigg: I do not want to be discourteous—far be it from that—but the hon. Member for Louth talks about ignorance. He has been in this House for eleven years, but he does not even understand the procedure on an Adjournment debate. However, I am not to be deflected from my purpose.
I am now raising a very fundamental question and I say this in all sincerity and with utter conviction. If the hon. Member for Epsom and those of his colleagues who spoke like him had been sincere in their purpose, they would have come to the House tonight and complained of the failure of the B.B.C. to put across to the country the events since 1st August. They would have explained why the Government could not take the action which the Government wanted to take because of our utter unpreparedness.
Although the Government may think that they have got over the immediate difficulties, this particular "bogey-man" has still to be tackled. We still have an enormous defence bill. We still have a colossal defence expenditure. But we are as far away, if not farther now, from any reality in defence as we were on the day that the crisis started.
I can conceive of no policy-making organ or instrument of public instruction better fitted than the B.B.C. to have the most earnest discussion of the kind of world in which we now find ourselves, in all its ramifications, and of the new thinking which has got to be done by all political parties. The happenings of the last week were, in my judgment, the beginning of a new era. They witnessed the close of the old era and the beginning of the new. Things will never be the same politically, economically or in any other way.
The British people, for ten years past, have been living in a dream world, fostered—we all bear a responsibility—


and exploited by the party opposite. There is no organ of opinion in this country which has a greater responsibility than the B.B.C. It could, with its huge resources, have helped to turn this nation into a vast discussion group, probing, inquiring and examining.

Mr. Osborne: Not while the hon. Member for Dudley is talking.

Mr. Wigg: Probably not. That remark again shows the sort of level of expression to be expected from the hon. Member for Louth, which, if it takes literary form, is writing epithets on lavatory walls.

Mr. Osborne: On a point of order. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this abuse can be stopped under some rule of the House? I appeal to you. If we must listen to this tedious speech, at least personal abuse should be kept out of it.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear what the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) said. What were the words the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) complains of?

Mr. Osborne: The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) complains that I should use my abuse on lavatory walls.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member for Dudley said that, it was a most improper remark.

Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order. With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am the last person to abuse the rules of the House. What I did say, in precise form, was that I doubted whether the hon. Member for Louth could write at all, but that if his expression took literary form it would probably be writing epithets on lavatory walls.

Mr. Speaker: I think it is a very offensive remark to make. The hon. Member for Dudley ought to withdraw it.

Mr. Wigg: I bow to your Ruling, Sir. I will gladly withdraw the remark—

Mr. Osborne: The first decent thing that the hon. Member has done tonight.

Mr. Wigg: I must point out, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Louth carries on a constant stream of interruption, which I do not mind if I can always hear it. But I find difficulty in hearing his remarks, and it does strike me that

if this is a form of controversy in which he indulges that sort of calling of names and running away seems to be about the limit of his expression. But I am not to be deflected. I am here, and I shall say what I have a right to say.

Mr. Osborne: It is a pity that it will not lead to a serious contribution to the debate.

Mr. Wigg: On a point of order. May I again ask your protection, Mr. Speaker, from constant interruption by the hon. Member for Louth, who makes all his remarks without rising to his feet?

Mr. Hale: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Louth, in the hearing of every Member of the House, has uttered a whole series of derogatory statements, has not risen to his feet to make one of them, is continuing to do so, and apparently intends to continue to do so. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there can be some protection?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear what the hon. Member for Louth said. Perhaps the microphone in front of him was not alive.

Mr. Wigg: I very much regret that that remark, Sir, applies only to the microphone.
I was saying, when I was interrupted, that this country needs to face the facts and to turn itself into a discussion group to inquire and probe every aspect of our national life. Unless that is done, unless there is a fearless and courageous facing of the facts, there is no hope for us.
I would remind the House that our age structure is wrong. We have a population which is ageing and tending to decline. Our educational programme is clearly inadequate to our needs. We are not turning out the technicians that we ought. Our universities are not providing the research students that we need. As far as our economy is concerned, Government supporters are far more concerned about winning Elections than about the national needs. We had a diminution in the size of the Income Tax, against the national needs, so that the Government could buy popularity with public money and could get a majority in order to carry on the orgy of misrule for a further period.
What does the B.B.C. say about it? I pay my tribute to the hon. Member for Louth; he knows that what I am saying is true. He knows the dishonesty of the Budget before last, because he himself said so. What do we get from the B.B.C? Mr. Paul Bareau, and economists of that ilk, a mere Tory "stooge". Government supporters have the impertinence to come here and talk about Left-wing propaganda slants from the B.B.C. Was there ever such nonsense?
In every aspect of our national life is the same story. When is an economist who happens to hold heterodox views invited to the microphone? Never. Can any hon. Gentleman tell me of an economist with an established reputation, who happens to hold views which are not accepted by the Treasury, getting anywhere near the microphone? There is the same barrier, the same curbing of discussion and of opinion, in the field of economics as there is in the field of religion.
I turn to the vital subject of defence. In that fled, the need for a very quick appreciation of the facts of a situation is vitally important. We have spent vast sums of public money. Can any hon. Gentleman on either side of the House point to a single occasion in the last ten years when we have had a detailed examination and discusson on the B.B.C. of the defence Estimates from any single Department? Can any hon. Gentleman who has been in this House since 1945 remember one occasion when we have had an informed discussion on our inability to raise Regular recruits for the Army? Can any hon. Gentleman remember an objective, unbiased and informed discussion to enable the public to make up their own minds about the realities of the situation?
Oh, no. What we get is great respectability. We had Black Rod from the House of Lords. He appeared on the B.B.C., an excellent broadcaster but not exactly a controversial figure, and not exactly a figure objected to by the Tory Party. I challenge the Assistant Postmaster-General. I have touched on religion and economics and now come to the subject of defence, on which the hon. Gentleman is an expert. Can he remember a single occason when a military writer or thinker, who happened to hold views which were not 100 per cent. acceptable to the Minis-

try of Defence, found an opportunity to discuss the defence problems of this country? If the Assistant Postmaster-General cannot do so, can any hon. Member opposite find one?
One can go through the subjects of religion, economics, politics, military affairs, agriculture, mining, education, every aspect of our national life, and find the same story. Conscious of it or not, the B.B.C. is an instrument to maintain the status quo. What this country needs, what this country has got to have if it is to survive, is a revolution—not a revolution at the barricades, that belongs to primitive and backward people, but a revolution of morals and thought. We have to substantiate the claim we make to be the most highly developed democracy in the world. That is the claim, but we have fallen a little short of it in the last fortnight. Owing to the functioning of the B.B.C., owing to the functioning of a corrupt and stupid Press—by "corrupt" I mean an intellectually corrupt and lazy Press—the public of this country have not been told the truth.
Among the first requirements of a democrat is the ability to make up one's mind on very limited evidence. The great genius of the British people is that they can do that. Time and time again in our history the masses of men and women of this country—the majority of them, like the hon. Member for Kidderminster and myself, had their education cut off just at the moment when it should have been starting—have known better than their rulers. Their instinct has been strong enough to give expression to the traditions which have made this country great.

Mr. Hale: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend again. I do not want to disturb the main tenor of his argument, but, before he sits down, will he refer to the colonial aspects of this question? [Laughter.] I am not trying to be funny. This is a vital matter. There is the whole question of British Guiana, on which the representatives of the people—

Mr. Speaker: Many Speakers before me—and I repeat it—have deprecated the raising of matters on the Adjournment of which no notice has been given to the appropriate Minister. There is a certain code of behaviour on these matters.

Mr. Hale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That point was raised with Mr. Deputy-Speaker before you resumed in the Chair. The point was made that there comes a time when it would be uneconomic to summon all the Ministers, but one Minister is present who is directly responsible.
I am not suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) should deal with colonial affairs, but precisely with the point that he is raising and to which the Assistant Postmaster-General could reply. That is the attitude of the B.B.C. towards colonial problems. Surely that is a matter for the Postmaster-General, or the Assistant Postmaster-General, and one on which the Colonial Secretary would certainly be able to reply that he had no ministerial responsibility.

Mr. Wigg: I am very conscious of your Ruling about giving notice to Departmental Ministers, Mr. Speaker, but, with respect, I am speaking on the Adjournment on a matter raised by the hon. Member for Epsom, who has now left the Chamber. The hon. Member raised it, as he admitted, on a Conservative Central Office brief, hoping that the matter would go through—

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) is not now present, I think it would be right to say that he made no such admission.

Mr. Wigg: It is within the recollection of hon. Members that when my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West made the point that it was a Conservative Party brief, the hon. Member for Epsom did not deny it.

Mr. Nabarro: He did.

Mr. Wigg: He did not do so in my recollection. If he denied it, I owe him an apology, because I have since repeated it several times in his hearing without being contradicted by him. He certainly admitted that the examples which he gave to the House were examples which had been supplied to him. It may be that they had been gathered from a variety of sources, and perhaps we wrong him in saying that they were all supplied from the Conservative Central Office.
In any event, he came to the House tonight to suggest that the B.B.C. had failed in its job and that it was guilty of a Left-wing slant. The consequences of that are extremely serious. If he had come here at the end of a day when hon. Members were tired and lacking in diligence, they would have gone home and would have read the account the next day. The Assistant Postmaster-General, who I am quite sure, in the ordinary way, was fully aware of what was going to be said, would have given the assurances which were requested, there would have been no public inquiry, there would have been a private inquiry, and we should have found that the screw was being put on and that what little independence the B.B.C. has was being quietened. I thought that was totalitarian.
The hon. Member also seriously suggested, in this great legislative Chamber, this Mother of Parliaments, that the Government should take over and put out its own propaganda, paid for by public money, for consumption abroad. If hon. Members opposite think I have been talking for the sake of talking, I ask them to forget it. I am saying something which is of importance if they have the wit to listen.
It is not very often that one gets the opportunity. I shall probably not get the opportunity again for a long time; I am well aware of that. But I also know the rules of the House, not as well as you, Mr. Speaker, but at least as well as some hon. Members opposite; and I know very well that if I am energetic enough the opportunity will come, and, indeed, that I can make my own opportunity.
This is an occasion worth taking advantage of, because we have here a conspiracy to quieten democracy. Of course the Government are afraid of the informed voice of the people. It is worth noticing the point at which the hon. Member for Louth tried to silence me. What was the point at which he tried to count the House out? He did it when I was telling the House that if they wanted to check the Government's propaganda and the story that the Government have carried out their operation in Egypt in order to explode a Russian plot, they should go to Lloyd's List and count the ships which have arrived in Alexandria harbour in the last few months. It was


about that point that the hon. Member for Louth found it convenient to try to stop me.
But this is a free assembly, and provided I speak inside the rules of order I have a right and a duty to say to the House of Commons that the B.B.C. is not an instrument of Left-wing propaganda; it is a flabby, emasculated collection of very well-meaning people who do not understand the meaning of the word democracy.

Mr. Nabarro: Drivel.

Mr. Wigg: They do not understand the meaning of the word "democracy", and the hon. Member for Kidderminster is the only evidence to the contrary, because he is a misfit in the Tory Party, although he does not know it; he is an exhibit, poor-boy-made-good, and as long as he has "exhibit" hung around his neck, I do not mind.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seems to be straying from the domain of Ministerial responsibility at the moment.

Mr. Wigg: I regret that this is the temptation which I can never resist. I am such a believer in democracy that I believe in giving way and answering interjections which have been made. Previously I answered the hon. Member for Louth, and I have now answered the hon. Member for Kidderminster. The Ministerial responsibility is not to be a party to a kind of conspiracy to silence the B.B.C. but to encourage the B.B.C. to be vigorous in giving opportunities for the expression of every aspect of opinion. Democracy was born in the market-place—that is where men struggled and fought with ideas; it is not there to sit down to emasculated talks—and even for those talks to be watered down because they do not happen to suit the hon. Member for Epsom or the hon. Member for West-bury.

Mr. Nabarro: There is nothing emasculated about me.

Mr. Wigg: I was about to fall into the temptation of answering the half-heard interjection of the hon. Member for Kidderminister.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Would my hon. Friend consider that perhaps other hon. Members might wish to take part in the discussion?

Mr. Wigg: I am certainly aware of that. The hon. Member has only just come into the House, and I am sure that he would not ask me to forgo my privilege. I have several more comments that I wish to make.

Sir R. Grimston: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible for you to inquire of the hon. Member who has the Floor whether it is his intention to sit down in sufficient time for the Minister to have adequate time to reply to the debate?

Mr. Speaker: That would be no part of my function.

Mr. Wigg: If the Minister would care to interrupt me in order to say at what time he would like to speak, I would certainly do my best to limit my remarks to the point where he would have a full opportunity of replying.

Mr. Alport: I will merely say that I would naturally wish to reply to this debate, which relates to a matter with which I am particularly concerned. I think that it would be fairer, however, to say that I would not wish my remarks to be such as to detract from the rights, unnecessarily, of other back bench Members on both sides who, I am sure, wish to take part in the debate and whose opportunities of doing so are being increasingly limited.

Mr. Wigg: I had hoped to hear from the hon. Gentleman at what time he would wish to get up. I shall be only too willing to limit my remarks to the point of meeting his convenience to the fullest possible extent, but I want to point out to him, and to the House, that when I got up I saw no signs of any other hon. Member wishing to speak. I then said that there were two-and-a-half hours in front of me, and therefore I have used part of that time, I think, to the best possible advantage.

Mr. Nabarro: I should like to point out to the hon. Member, in case he has omitted to notice the fact, that he came into this debate shortly after it started, and that since 7 o'clock I have been standing on the cessation of every speech. He has, however, occupied the time of the House for nearly 100 minutes in order primarily, of course, to prevent my speaking.

Mr. Wigg: I have not the slightest interest in preventing the hon. Member from speaking, Mr. Speaker. If he does not catch your eye this evening, he will find other opportunities. An effort was made by the hon. Member for Louth to cut short my remarks. He moved to count out the House. As long as I am in order, and as long as you approve, Sir—and if the Minister does not wish to indicate when he wants to reply—perhaps I may be allowed to continue.

Mr. Rankin: Is not the Minister being discourteous to the House, Mr. Speaker? Is it not usual for the Minister to indicate to the House and to the Opposition when he would like to reply?

Mr. Alport: As far as I know, it has never been that custom at all, although in the normal way unofficial arrangements are made. In my experience of this House, it has certainly never been indicated as to when the Minister should reply. Naturally, I would wish to reply, and it would be in the interests of both sides, I think, that I should have reasonable time to do so.

Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. Has it not been the invariable practice that one should not move to count out the House during an Adjournment Motion? And do hon. Members realise that if this comes about it will mean that very few such Motions will be heard?

Mr. Speaker: These are not points of order at all.

Mr. Wigg: I had, in fact, myself noticed that an attempt was made to count out the House, and hon. Members opposite should know that that is a game which two can play. An attempt was made to count me out, and I am now, as it were, being generous in wishing to accommodate the Minister to the fullest possible extent.
I came into the debate as soon as I knew that the Adjournment was on, and I had every intention of trying to speak in it, if only to protest that a speech of this importance was being slipped through in this way. I caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, and so far as I understood no one else wanted to speak. The hon. Member for Louth did not want to speak and made no attempt to get up.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member had really better get back to subjects for which Ministers are responsible.

Mr. Wigg: I will now talk on the question of defence from which I have been put off on several occasions. The case which I have tried to make tonight is that this was an organised effort by the Conservative Central Office for a back bench Conservative Member to come down to this House and give examples which had been carefully worked out in order to bring pressure on the B.B.C. to be even more timorous than it has been.
It is part of my case that the B.B.C. has not only—and I emphasise "not"—been indulging in Tory propaganda, but it has gone out of its way ever since the Suez crisis at the beginning of August to withhold the truth from the British people. I invite the Minister tonight—and I will in three or four minutes sit down in order to give him a full half-hour in which to reply—to say if he believes for a split second that there is even a modicum of truth in the allegations which had been made by the hot. Member for Epsom. I invite him to ask the B.B.C. to run a series of talks, given by the most prominent, eminent and unbiased men in this country, to examine in detail the various excuses which have been supplied by the Government since the beginning of the invasion of Egypt.

Mr. Harold Davies: Since I have been following the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), I have noticed that he has omitted completely from his discussion of the B.B.C. the entire problem of television. Will he, in his characteristic way, ask the Minister to give the number of hours on television during which pictures have been shown of the blockage of the Suez Canal, the ships that are in it and the position in Egypt and in Cyprus at present. Those pictures should be shown to a knowledgeable British public.

Mr. Wigg: I did not deal with television tonight because the hon. Member for Epsom did not raise the issue of television.

Mr. Davies: I am raising it.

Mr. Wigg: My hon. Friend must do it in his own way. I am perfectly aware that the Right-wing bias—the bias in favour


of the trivial, in favour of the obvious, the attempt to treat the British public as if their intellectual level was that of a Tory women's gathering—is the motivating force behind it. They cannot bring themselves to believe that ordinary men and women who work for their living with their minds and intelligence and the extent to which they build up an informed public opinion is the extent to which any Government, Tory or Labour, could subsequently take action.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]

Mr. Wigg: My last point is this. Not all the complaints are on one side. I have other examples. I have a dozen files of examples built up over the years of the grossest Tory misrepresentation. But I prefer to take a charitable view. I do not charge the B.B.C., every time that it broadcasts something that I do not like, with Tory propaganda; but I think that it is timid and lacks courage. That is the skilful purpose behind this Adjournment debate tonight, to make the B.B.C. more timorous and cautious.
I want to read a letter. I will not reveal where it comes from, but it is dated 9th November and states:
Listening to the 9 p.m. news on Thursday evening, 8th November. I was shocked to hear the report of a statement made by Mr. Antony Head in the House that day concerning Suez. He said'…that the Suez Canal cannot, and must not. be solely the concern of the Egyptian Government. That is what all this has been about.' After having heard the Prime Minister, and other Ministers, declare that our intervention was only 'police action' I was dumbfounded, and thought I had misheard the statement. I intently listened to the 10 p.m. news and again to 'Today in Parliament', fully expecting to hear some reference to this matter, but nothing further was said.
Hon. Members know exactly what happened. The right hon. Gentleman made that statement in this House. It was a damning statement, for it contradicted every single word that every other Minister has said. The Minister of Defence had told the truth. What is it about?—Britain's honour and good name, young Britons exposed to violent death and mutilation, so that the Prime Minister and his friends can get back in the Canal. The

Tory Party is determined at all costs to stop that truth from emerging.

Mr. Nabarro: Drivel.

Mr. Wigg: The hon. Member for Kidderminster, with his usual courtesy, was not listening. I will repeat for his benefit the allegation in the letter:
I was shocked to hear the report of a statement made by Mr. Antony Head … 'that the Suez Canal cannot, and must not, be solely the concern of the Egyptian Government. That is what all this has been about.' 
It was on the 9 o'clock news on Thursday evening. It was not on the news at 10 o'clock and it never appeared again.
Those are my last words. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Epsom. The B.B.C. occasionally lets the truth out, and when it does hon. Members opposite do not applaud it. They condemn it and they try to throttle it.

10.4 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster - General (Mr. C. J. M, Alport): The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) appears to forget that the particular incident to which he has just referred was the subject of an exchange between his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence quite recently, when the Minister of Defence made it quite clear that the reference which the hon. Gentleman mentioned was to the clearing of the Canal and not to the whole of the Suez episode.
It is, however, typical of the hon. Gentleman that he should come to this House, participate in a debate on a relatively limited subject and make a large number of sweeping allegations on the subject of defence, to which he has given study, when he knew—because he is a Member of long standing in this House—that there would be no Minister immediately present with responsibility to make a reply.

Mr. Wigg: Why not?

Mr. Alport: I would say to the hon. Gentleman that if he has confidence in the allegations he has made, he should surely have kept his statements until there was an opportunity for an answer to be given authoritatively by the Minister in charge of the Department concerned. Listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech, I think it a good thing that in the B.B.C. we have a reliable and


responsible organisation which, no doubt, will treat the hon. Gentleman's speech reliably and responsibly and prevent the damage to the cause which he has in mind, to his own party and to the House, which would result if his speech were listened to verbatim in this country.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the industrious working people of—

Mr. Hale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Assistant Postmaster-General has just expressed the hope to the B.B.C., for whom he is responsible to the House, that it will not report a speech to which the House has just listened with interest and applause. If that is not typical Fascist dictatorship, what is?
A statement has been made by the Minister which, on reflection, he may wish to withdraw. But clearly within the hearing of hon. Members he expressed a desire, if not a directive, that a speech from this side of the House should be censored, and that an hon. Member's remarks should not be recorded at all. That is what he said, and I rise to a very serious point of order, to ask whether you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, do not rule that such a remark is grossly improper, an abuse of the duties of a Minister and an abuse of the privilege that he holds?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): It certainly was not out of order.

Mr. Alport: It is clear that the B.B.C., as I have said, will deal with this matter very responsibly and properly. I think it in accordance with the dignity of the House that some of the abuse which the hon. Gentleman levelled, not only at right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, but at his own colleagues and at the institutions of this country, should not be widely heard; because it would not go to the credit of the House, nor to the credit of the hon. Gentleman.
If I may, I should like to try to restore the course of this debate to the subject to which it was originally directed. My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) initiated this debate on a subject which I am aware, and I think all hon. Members are aware, has been discussed widely during these last three weeks. At a time of great controversy,

there is naturally an acute sensitiveness to the treatment of news and opinions by an organisation which has the power to influence the public at home, and the responsibility for representing our country to the people abroad.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will, in fairness, recognise that the B.B.C. is doomed eternally to sail between what must appear to the Corporation to be the Scylla and Charybdis of Government and Opposition; and in stormy weather the difficulties of setting its course are greatly increased. The knowledge, therefore, that vigilant eyes are watching the way in which the B.B.C. carries out its heavy responsibility, and the fact that it is the subject of Parliamentary debate, are, I should have thought, valuable to the B.B.C. and a reassurance to the public of all political persuasions.
I find it difficult, therefore, to accept at least one aspect of the doctrine advanced in The Times this morning with regard to our responsibility in this matter. Parliament, surely, has the right to criticise and discuss matters of public interest, and surely the activities of a great public Corporation fall into that category.
I must make it clear that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has not in any way modified the interpretation of his responsibilities in this matter which are set out in a debate which was held in this House on 2nd May of last year. He said then:
… I desire to make perfectly plain the absolute limitations—desirable limitations—on what the Postmaster-General can do in directing the British Broadcasting Corporation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd May, 1955; Vol. 540, c. 1480.]
Apart from certain powers given to him under Clause 15 of the Licence, the responsibility for the administration of the day-to-day affairs of the B.B.C., including the programmes, rests with the Governors of the B.B.C.
I would remind the House of a Resolution of the House itself, passed in 1933, which says:
… it would be contrary to the public interest to subject the Corporation to any control by Government or by Parliament other than the control already provided for in the Charter and the Licence of the Corporation.
That, frankly, is the answer to the hon. Member for Dudley, who asked us to take special action to instruct the B.B.C. to


do certain things which he thought would be good. The hon. Gentleman has accused this side of the House of Fascist tendencies, but what could be a greater interference with the liberties, and safeguards of liberty, of the B.B.C. than the suggestion which the hon. Member has made?

Mr. Hale: Does that take account of the rights of minorities?

Mr. Wigg: It is noticeable that when the hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) suggested an internal inquiry, that is all right; when I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should invite the B.B.C. to discuss plans for a series of talks, there is objection.

Mr. Rawlinson: On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), whose mind may have wandered since other hon. Members spoke in the debate, to attribute to a Member a suggestion which was certainly not made by me?

Mr. Alport: I am trying to make it clear that these are matters for the Governors of the B.B.C. and not for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General or, for that matter, for the Government of the day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom advanced certain criticisms in respect of the editorial and presentation of the news. In its handbook for 1957, the B.B.C. says:
The ideal of every B.B.C. bulletin is 'a fair selection of items impartially presented.' This was the phrase used by the Ullswater Committee of 1935, and it survived the test of war. There is no room in a B.B.C. bulletin for the personal views of the editors or subeditors. Their duty is to give the facts so that listeners may form their own opinions.
I should think that there is no Member in this House who would in any way disagree with that statement.
The problem which the B.B.C. faces is, however, that it must try to live up to the ideal which it sets itself. What it must do is to examine from time to time how far it is successful in doing so. I think that the House will recognise that the events of the last three weeks have presented the Corporation with an exceedingly difficult problem. This arises from the fact that an emergency in the field of foreign affairs, accompanied by a deep

conflict of opinion between Government and Opposition, has arisen during an era in which the powerful medium of television has been added to that of sound.
More than one of my hon. Friends—and I think that this is true of hon. Gentlemen opposite—has drawn attention to the particular problems which arose in connection with the feature "Panorama." The B.B.C. is fully aware of the implications of these events. I can assure all hon. Members that it has been, and always is, vigilant to ensure that it carries out the responsibility which is laid upon it to be impartial in these matters.
It has examined and is now examining, the methods of presentation of the various aspects of the controversy in both its sound and its television services, bearing in mind the importance of not only being impartial but of appearing to be impartial to the listening public, who, after all, are the men and women whom it serves.
It will be possible, therefore, for the B.B.C. to judge what action is necessary, if, indeed, any is needed, to safeguard what I think all hon. Members will agree is the vital tradition of impartiality which the B.B.C. has built up and which, as we saw during the war years and subsequently, is one of its greatest assets.
I would say, in addition, that the B.B.C. must always be more sure of its success in impartiality if it is attacked equally from both sides. I am reminded of a story told me recently about the handicapper at a Scottish racecourse who announced one day that he had finally got the handicapping of a race perfected, because he had received a letter of complaint from the owner of every horse in the race.
In some degree, that is a test of impartiality, but I think it fair to say, from the point of view of the B.B.C., that it is a very rough and ready test, to say the most of it. The definition and achievement of absolute impartiality is one of the most difficult things with which any corporation or person concerned with current affairs and public discussion can possibly be confronted.
I have no doubt that the points raised by my hon. Friends and by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and not least the points raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), in his engaging


speech, in which he referred to the importance of ensuring proper trade union representation in B.B.C. programmes, will be borne in mind by the Corporation when it considers the outcome of this debate.
I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that the B.B.C. is particularly anxious to assist them in keeping in touch with the various aspects of its activities. I have asked the Acting Director-General to consider how this can best be done: I am sure that it will be of assistance to hon. Members in keeping in touch with those activities, and of advantage to the B.B.C. in ensuring that its difficulties are fully understood, if hon. Members have ready access to various material which they may from time to time require.
There is one aspect of the rôle of the B.B.C. in public political discussion—reference has been made to it in the debate—which falls into a rather special category. This relates to Ministerial broadcasts. This subject was referred to by the hon. Member for Dudley and by other hon. Members. As the hon. Member for Dudley may know, and as the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) certainly knows, this is governed by an agreement in the form of an aide-mémoire which dates from February, 1947, an agreement which is reviewed from year to year in conjunction with the two major parties in the House. By this, Ministers may make statements, and, where these are highly controversial, the Opposition can claim a right to reply.
In the case of the Prime Minister's broadcast on 3rd November, it was, and still is, our view that my right hon. Friend was, in the words of the aide-mémoire, as impartial as possible. The aide-mémoire lays down that, if no agreement is reached between the two sides in this matter, the B.B.C. is free to exercise its own judgment. It accordingly did so. Whether or not that exercise of judgment is agreed to by hon. Members on either side of the House, I think that many will accept the evaluation that was given to it by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal in his speech of yesterday.
I must make it clear—and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Smethwick knows this—that the responsibilities and

the relationship between the Government and the B.B.C. over home affairs as laid down in the Licence are not the same as their relationship in respect of external affairs. He will remember that Clause 15 (2), (3) and (4) deal with home affairs, while 15 (5) deals with overseas broadcasts, and that this says:
The Corporation shall consult and collaborate with the Departments so specified"—
which are the Commonwealth Relations Office, the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office—
and shall obtain and accept from them such information regarding conditions in, and lie policies of Her Majesty's Government aforesaid towards, the countries so prescribed and other countries as will enable the Corporation to plan and prepare its programmes in the External Services in the national interest.
I thought that the right hon. Member was unfair when he tried to make a point which is true in respect of news but not true, and not recognised as necessarily being true, in respect of the whole programme of the Overseas Services.

Mr. Gordon Walker: The hon. Member must interpret himself the words which he has just read out. It does not say that the B.B.C. has to accept. The B.B.C. has to inform itself of the views of the Government about the countries concerned; but it is the B.B.C., and not the Government, who prepare the programmes.

Mr. Alport: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is not intentionally reading into my remarks anything that I have not said. It is quite clear that the detail of the programme is the responsibility of the B.B.C., but it also has a responsibility in these matters to keep in touch with the Departments concerned so that, as it says—it can
prepare its programmes in the External Services in the national interest.
It is also worth remembering that it is very difficult, if not physically impossible, for the B.B.C. to direct a particular service in the overseas field to a special audience. It would be quite impossible, for instance, to differentiate, in the General Overseas Service, between an audience in Cyprus and another audience in Malta or some other part of the Eastern Mediterranean. It is asking the B.B.C. to do the physically impossible to say that it should ensure, for instance,


that in the case of Forces engaged in action any special service should be available to them other than a special service made available locally and not through the medium of the external services of the General Overseas Service.
No one is more aware than the Government of the importance of making the British point of view heard and understood in those parts of the world where it is most frequently traduced and misrepresented, and the reputation of the B.B.C. for its objectivity and integrity is one of our most important assets in this matter. It is surely evidence of this that we heard the moving tribute to the B.B.C. which was paid by the Hungarian State Radio at the end of the pathetically short period during which it spoke for the people of Hungary.
But there are undoubtedly arguments—as the Drogheda Committee has pointed out—for the redeployment of our resources in this field.
It has been argued by many people of experience, particularly General Glubb, that special methods are needed in particular areas to ensure that the point of view of this country is not drowned in the loud and tendentious voices of those whose only object appears to be to destroy the standards and the values not only of Great Britain, but of free, democratic peoples everywhere.
I can assure my hon. Friends who have referred to this subject that this matter is being very carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government, and hon. Members will not, I hope, expect me to go into details of the plans and the proposals which are afoot. I hope, however, that they will accept my assurance that the Government are no less aware than they are of the importance of this problem, and no less determined than they are that an effective solution should be found for it before it is too late.
A good many hard things have been said in the debate about the B.B.C. The B.B.C., no doubt like other human institutions, is not infallible, and I do not suppose for a moment that it would claim that it was. At the same time, it has created a tradition of great value to this country. It performs a great service for this country, and I am quite certain that the criticism which is levelled at it from time to time is of assistance to it in

carrying out those services and should not be regarded simply as nagging criticism aimed at destroying its initiative and purpose.
The truth of the matter is that in this world, when high feelings are raging on a particular subject, there is abnormal sensitiveness to the problems of expression of points of view on the B.B.C., but I have no doubt at all that if any improvement or changes are necessary the Governors and the B.B.C. will be among the first to see that those changes and improvements are carried out speedily, so that the B.B.C. can retain, as it has in the past, the full confidence of all sections of the community in this country.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I can well understand the anxiety of hon. Members opposite to raise this subject, because an impartial presentation of the facts damns the Government completely. I should like to raise an issue of real importance in the few minutes that remain. I do not dissent very much from what the Assistant Postmaster-General has said. He put his case moderately and reasonably, and we all agree that the B.B.C. is a very great and a useful institution doing very good work.
The point upon which there should be more discussion is the presentation of the rights of minorities and the case for minority opinion. We have had this problem over a long period. I am not a Spiritualist, but I happen to be associated with spiritualists. They tried for years to get a chance to put their case, but it was years before that chance was conceded. At this moment, when millions of people are turning—perhaps a little dubiously and uncertainly—more towards a pacifist point of view, no pacifist has been heard on the B.B.C. No one who believes completely in non-violence is given an opportunity of putting the case, opening a discussion, or allowing the overwhelming religious case, the Christian case, for pacifism to be put with all the force of the B.B.C. These organisations, usually with little money and with few possibilities of propaganda and of organising meetings in towns and villages, are compelled to use the old and almost outworn methods of putting their case before the public.
My other point is a more difficult one. The B.B.C. is the voice of Britain not only here but throughout the greater part of the Colonies and in some part of the Commonwealth. In the Colonies what is sometimes a minority opinion—but what is sometimes a majority opinion in the Colony—is not put at all. Orders have been made and constitutions suspended, but we have never heard on the B.B.C. the voice of someone representing the colonial workers and saying that he objects to the suspension of the constitution and giving his view of what has been happening.
I pay my tribute to the B.B.C. I am completely impartial in this matter. The B.B.C. has never used me, so I have no axe to grind. On the last occasion the B.B.C. invited me, the party Whips said that I should not be allowed to go—

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.